Security Requirements Analysis Report

Comprehensive Security Analysis with Interactive Dashboard

Author

Security Requirements System v2.0

Published

November 20, 2025

Generated: 2025-11-20 10:16:02 Report Version: 2.0 - Comprehensive Security Analysis

1. Executive Summary

This section provides a high-level overview of the security requirements analysis, presenting key findings, validation results, and an interactive dashboard for stakeholders and decision-makers. The executive summary enables rapid comprehension of the security posture, critical risks, control coverage, and compliance status without requiring detailed technical knowledge.

1.1. Purpose and Scope

Purpose

This document presents a comprehensive security requirements analysis for the proposed application, systematically mapping high-level business requirements to specific, actionable security controls aligned with multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. The analysis provides a complete security requirements specification that guides secure system design, implementation, and verification.

Scope

This analysis encompasses all functional requirements provided, delivering comprehensive coverage across multiple security domains:

Requirements Analysis: Systematic decomposition and security-relevant extraction from business requirements
Stakeholder Analysis: Identification of stakeholders, trust boundaries, and security responsibilities
Threat Modeling: Systematic identification and assessment of security threats using STRIDE methodology
Security Control Mapping: Mapping requirements to multi-standard security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed implementation guidance
Compliance Requirements: Identification of regulatory and legal compliance obligations
Architectural Security: Security architecture recommendations and design patterns
Implementation Planning: Prioritized, phased implementation roadmap
Verification Strategies: Testing and validation approaches for security controls

The analysis provides both strategic guidance for security planning and tactical details for implementation teams.

1.2. Key Findings

This section summarizes the most critical results from the security requirements analysis, providing executives and stakeholders with immediate insight into the security posture and validation status.

Analysis Metrics

Validation Score: 0.88/1.0
Validation Status: ✅ Passed
Analysis Iterations: 1
Requirements Analyzed: 20

Application Summary

A secure, multi-tenant web application for government agencies to manage interpreter and translator bookings, document translation workflows, and collaboration with service providers; it handles scheduling, document uploads and versioning, role-based access for agency and provider workspaces, notifications and reporting, and integrates with calendars, email, e-signature and translation tools while maintaining auditability, accessibility, and compliance with government data protection requirements.

The validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. A score of 0.8 or higher indicates that the requirements are ready for implementation, while scores below this threshold may require refinement before proceeding.

1.3. Security Overview Dashboard

This interactive dashboard provides executive-level visualization of key security metrics and trends, enabling rapid assessment of the security posture through intuitive charts and data visualizations. The dashboard presents critical information across multiple dimensions: risk distribution, security control coverage, compliance status, implementation progress, and data quality metrics. For optimal viewing experience, render this document with Quarto to enable interactive chart functionality, allowing stakeholders to explore data dynamically and drill down into specific areas of interest.

Figure 1: Risk heat map showing threat distribution by likelihood and impact (1-5 scale).

Top 5 Highest Risks:

THR-001 (Critical) - User Management (Auth service / Identity Service / SSO) - Category: Spoofing - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 4 - Description: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak passwords, or exploiting SSO misconfigurations (SAML/OIDC replay or assertion manipulation) to register/log in as Admin, Co

THR-006 (Critical) - Application Services (RBAC) - Category: Elevation of Privilege - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 4 - Description: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant boundaries or gain Admin privileges through insecure checks in APIs or direct object reference manipulation.

THR-028 (Critical) - Application Services (Session handling / SPA) - Category: Spoofing - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 4 - Description: Session cookie theft via XSS or insecure storage leads to account takeover; SPA storing tokens in localStorage increases risk of token theft by malicious scripts.

THR-005 (High) - Frontend Layer / Application Services - Category: Information Disclosure - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 3 - Description: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams allowing escalation to session theft, data exfiltration, or unwanted actions with user context.

THR-024 (High) - Edge & API Gateway - Category: Information Disclosure - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 3 - Description: Verbose error messages or stack traces returned by API gateway reveal internal architecture, DB queries, or sensitive identifiers aiding attackers in crafting targeted attacks.

Figure 2: Security control distribution by standard (OWASP, NIST, ISO 27001).

Figure 3: OWASP ASVS control distribution by verification category (V1-V14).

Figure 4: Security control priority distribution (Critical/High/Medium/Low).

Coverage Metrics:

Total Security Controls Mapped: 61
- OWASP ASVS: 20 controls
- NIST SP 800-53: 29 controls
- ISO 27001: 12 controls
Requirements with Security Control Mapping: 100.0% (20/20)
Average Controls per Requirement: 3.0
Critical Controls: 14 (23.0% of total)
Requirements with Verification: 100.0% (20/20)
Recommended ASVS Level: L2 (Standard)

Figure 5: Compliance status across all applicable frameworks (Red-Amber-Green rating). Shows regulatory compliance (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.) and security standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001).

Compliance Summary:

⚠️ OWASP ASVS: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)
⚠️ NIST SP 800-53: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)
⚠️ ISO 27001: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)

Figure 6: Projected implementation timeline by phase and week (based on priority-based planning).

Implementation Timeline (Projected):

Phase 1 (Critical/High): 100% projected completion (Weeks 1-8)
Phase 2 (Medium): 100% projected completion (Weeks 9-16)
Phase 3 (Low/Ongoing): Continuous improvement and monitoring

Note: Timeline is based on priority-based planning and assumes steady implementation progress.

Validation Metrics:

Overall Validation Score: ✅ 0.88/1.0

Dimension Scores:

✅ Completeness: 0.86
✅ Consistency: 0.95
✅ Correctness: 0.90
⚠️ Implementability: 0.78
✅ Alignment: 0.92

Figure 7: Data quality and coverage metrics.

Traceability Matrix:

Total Requirements: 20
Linked to Threats: 19 (95.0%)
Mapped to Security Controls: 20 (100.0%)
With Verification: 20 (100.0%)

Data Quality: ✅ Excellent

2. Requirements Understanding

This section presents a comprehensive analysis of the functional requirements, extracting security-relevant information and establishing the foundation for the security requirements specification. Understanding the functional requirements is essential for identifying security implications, data sensitivity, trust boundaries, and security-critical components. This analysis transforms business requirements into security-aware specifications that inform threat modeling, control selection, and compliance assessment.

2.1. High-Level Requirements Analysis

The following high-level functional requirements have been identified and analyzed for security implications:

User registration and login with email, SSO, and multi-factor authentication
Role-based access control (Admin, Coordinator, Interpreter, Translator, Reviewer, Agency User)
User profiles capturing language pairs, certifications, availability, and vetting status
Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/authorization separation
Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings with scheduling and location details
Create translation jobs with document upload, assignment, review, and versioned deliverables
Automated assignment engine to match interpreters/translators by language, availability, certifications, and location
Task lifecycle management with configurable stages and progress tracking
Attachments, comments, mentions (@mentions), and per-task activity logs
Real-time updates (notifications/WS) and an activity feed showing recent team actions
File management: upload, preview, download, scanning, and file version history
Role- and workspace-based file and task access controls
Email, in-app, and optional SMS notifications (assignments, status updates, mentions, approvals, daily summaries)
Dashboards and reporting: task statistics, productivity, exports (CSV/PDF)
Agency financial and performance reporting (spend, SLA metrics)
Integrations: Outlook/Teams calendar synchronization for bookings
Integrations: transactional email service, DocuSign (e-signatures), optional CAT tool integrations
Accessibility, responsive UI, and multi-language user interface
Audit logging, immutable activity records, and configurable data retention
Security, encryption, malware scanning, data loss prevention, and incident response controls

2.2. Detailed Requirements Breakdown

Req ID	Requirement	Business Category	Security Sensitivity	Data Classification
REQ-001	User registration and login with email, SSO, and m…	Authentication & Identity	High	Confidential
REQ-002	Role-based access control (Admin, Coordinator, Int…	Authorization & Access Control	High	Confidential
REQ-003	User profiles capturing language pairs, certificat…	User Management / HR Data	Medium	Confidential
REQ-004	Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/authorizatio…	Multi-Tenancy / Data Segregation	High	Restricted
REQ-005	Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings wit…	Task & Scheduling Management	Medium	Confidential
REQ-006	Create translation jobs with document upload, assi…	Document & Workflow Management	High	Restricted
REQ-007	Automated assignment engine to match interpreters/…	Matching & Scheduling Automation	Medium	Confidential
REQ-008	Task lifecycle management with configurable stages…	Workflow Management	Medium	Confidential
REQ-009	Attachments, comments, mentions (@mentions), and p…	Collaboration & Audit	High	Restricted
REQ-010	Real-time updates (notifications/WS) and an activi…	Collaboration / Real-time Communication	Medium	Internal
REQ-011	File management: upload, preview, download, scanni…	File & Content Management	High	Restricted
REQ-012	Role- and workspace-based file and task access con…	Access Control & Data Governance	High	Restricted
REQ-013	Email, in-app, and optional SMS notifications (ass…	Notifications & Communications	Medium	Confidential
REQ-014	Dashboards and reporting: task statistics, product…	Reporting & Analytics	Medium	Confidential
REQ-015	Agency financial and performance reporting (spend,…	Finance & Performance Management	High	Restricted
REQ-016	Integrations: Outlook/Teams calendar synchronizati…	Integration & Scheduling	Medium	Confidential
REQ-017	Integrations: transactional email service, DocuSig…	Integration & Third-Party Services	Medium	Confidential
REQ-018	Accessibility, responsive UI, and multi-language u…	Usability & Accessibility	Low	Public
REQ-019	Audit logging, immutable activity records, and con…	Logging & Compliance	High	Restricted
REQ-020	Security controls including encryption in transit …	Security & Risk Management	High	Restricted

2.3. Security Context and Regulatory Obligations

Applicable regulations and standards include national and regional data protection laws (e.g., GDPR for EU-resident personal data or equivalent local government data protection legislation), government information security frameworks (e.g., NIST SP 800-53 / NIST SP 800-171 for US government and contractors, or nationally adopted equivalents), ISO/IEC 27001 for information security management, and e-signature regulations (e.g., eIDAS in EU) where DocuSign is used. Accessibility obligations include WCAG and jurisdictional laws (e.g., Section 508 in the US). Additional obligations may include records retention and disclosure laws (e.g., FOIA), procurement/financial audit requirements for agency spend reporting, and supply-chain security and data processing agreements for third-party integrations. If any health or criminal justice information is handled, HIPAA or CJIS/National Criminal Information Center rules apply respectively. The exact regulatory controls depend on the agencies’ jurisdictions and must be validated with legal/compliance owners.

2.4. Assumptions

System will be cloud-hosted (public or government cloud) and reachable via the public internet with secure controls.
Agencies will either provide SSO/IdP integration (SAML/OIDC) or accept a managed identity solution.
Users have modern browsers and network connectivity; mobile users will access via responsive web UI.
Third-party services (Outlook/Teams, email providers, DocuSign, CAT tools, SMS provider) provide stable APIs and support OAuth or equivalent secure integration.
No payment card processing is required within the application (no PCI-DSS scope) unless later added.
Interpreters/translators maintain and submit valid certifications and any required background checks externally; system stores evidence metadata and uploaded certifications.
Data residency and retention policies will be provided by agencies and may require region-specific hosting.
SMS delivery is via third-party provider and may expose limited metadata (phone numbers) to that provider.
Agencies require audit trails and will provide SLAs and retention/records management guidance.

2.5. Constraints

Must meet WCAG 2.1 AA (or agency-specified) accessibility standards and support multi-language UIs.
Must support modern web browsers and be responsive for tablet and mobile; no native mobile app in initial scope unless specified.
Tenant data isolation is required; architecture must support strong multi-tenancy or separate tenant instances per agency depending on data residency requirements.
Third-party integrations rely on vendor APIs and their SLAs; limited or degraded functionality is possible if APIs change or are unavailable.
Data residency and sovereign hosting constraints may mandate region-specific deployments and limit cross-region backups or processing.
Retention and immutable logging requirements may increase storage costs and require retention policy automation.
Uploads must be scanned for malware and stored securely; large file sizes and high throughput will impact storage and processing costs.
Legacy agency systems may not provide modern APIs; adapters or manual processes may be required for integration with legacy calendars or HR systems.
Operational constraints include providing incident response, patch management, regular security assessments, and possibly achieving agency-required certifications (e.g., FedRAMP, ISO 27001).
Optional SMS notifications are subject to telecom regulations and carrier deliverability constraints and may not be suitable for high-sensitivity content.

3. Stakeholder Analysis

This section identifies and analyzes all stakeholders involved in or affected by the system, including users, administrators, external partners, and regulatory bodies. Stakeholder analysis establishes trust boundaries, defines security responsibilities, and identifies potential security concerns from different stakeholder perspectives. Understanding stakeholder relationships and trust boundaries is critical for designing appropriate access controls, authentication mechanisms, and data protection measures.

3.1. Identified Stakeholders and User Personas

Role	Privilege Level	Trust Level	Key Security Concerns
Admin	Admin	Trusted	Privilege escalation by malicious insiders, unauthorized access to sensitive data, data integrity breaches.
Coordinator	User	Trusted	Mismanagement of bookings, unauthorized changes to tasks, potential data leakage.
Interpreter	User	Partially Trusted	Inaccurate task completion, exposure of sensitive data during assignments, compromised credentials.
Translator	User	Partially Trusted	Mismanagement of translation tasks, potential exposure to sensitive documents, unauthorized access to client data.
Reviewer	User	Partially Trusted	Incomplete reviews that lead to errors, unauthorized access to documents, potential for data loss.
Agency User	User	Partially Trusted	Unintended access to other agencies’ data, potential mismanagement of requests, exposure to compliance violations.
Service Account	Service Account	Untrusted	Insecure API access, unauthorized data manipulation, lack of auditing and monitoring.
Third-Party IdPs	Service Account	Untrusted	Insecure authentication processes, potential for identity spoofing, inadequate security controls.
Email/SMS Provider	Service Account	Untrusted	Data interception during transmission, lack of encryption, unauthorized access to notification data.
Calendar API	Service Account	Partially Trusted	Insecure data synchronization, potential data leaks during integration, unauthorized access to user calendars.
DocuSign	Service Account	Partially Trusted	Insecure document handling, potential for unauthorized signature requests, data breaches.
Malware Scanner	Service Account	Trusted	False negatives leading to data compromise, lack of timely updates, inadequate scanning coverage.

3.2. Trust Model

Trust boundaries are established at the user interface, backend server, and database levels. Security mechanisms enforcing boundaries include user authentication (email/password and SSO with MFA), role-based access control (RBAC) to ensure users can only access data and functionalities pertinent to their roles, and network segmentation to mitigate risks of unauthorized access. Admins have comprehensive access to manage system configurations and user privileges. Coordinators can manage bookings and tasks, while interpreters, translators, and reviewers have restricted access to only those tasks they are assigned to, ensuring that they cannot view or modify unrelated data. Agency users are limited to their workspace, ensuring tenant isolation. Service accounts have specific, limited permissions to perform automated tasks, and their activities are logged for auditing. The principle of least privilege is implemented by granting users the minimum access necessary to perform their responsibilities, thereby reducing the risk of data exposure and privilege escalation.

4. System Architecture Analysis

4.1. Architectural Overview

A cloud-hosted, multi-tenant web application providing agency workspaces for managing interpreter and translator bookings, document translation workflows, and collaboration. Users access a responsive Web SPA via a CDN/WAF and API gateway; authentication is handled by an Identity Service supporting SSO and MFA. Core application services (task API, assignment engine, workflow orchestration, real-time notifications, background jobs) run behind the API gateway and interact with encrypted data stores: a primary relational DB for transactional data, object storage for scanned/versioned files, an immutable audit/log store, and an analytics store for reporting. Integrations connect to third-party IdPs, email/SMS providers, calendar APIs (Outlook/Teams), DocuSign, CAT tools, and malware scanning. Security controls (RBAC, tenant isolation, encryption, DLP, malware scanning, logging) and accessibility requirements are applied across layers to protect sensitive government data and meet compliance and audit requirements.

4.2. Architecture Diagram

4.3. Component Breakdown

Component	Responsibility	Security Criticality	External Dependencies
Frontend Layer	Provide responsive SPA and admin UI for …	Medium	CDN/WAF
Edge & API Gateway	Receive and protect incoming traffic, pr…	High	CDN, WAF
Application Services	Core business logic for user management,…	Critical	Agency IdPs (SAML/OIDC), Email/SMS Provider
Data Storage	Store transactional data, multi-tenant m…	Critical	KMS/Key Management Service
Background & Queue Services	Process asynchronous tasks: assignment m…	High	Message Queue/Job Scheduler, Malware Scanning Service
Integrations & External Services	Connect securely to third-party provider…	High	Agency IdP SAML/OIDC, Email/SMS Provider
Observability & Audit	Collect immutable audit logs, access log…	Critical	Immutable Log Store, SIEM/Monitoring Tools

4.4. Data Flow Analysis

Users interact via the Web SPA, which communicates through the CDN and API Gateway to backend services. Authentication is performed by the Identity Service (with IdP delegation); upon success the Core API handles CRUD operations for tasks, bookings, profiles and files. File uploads are routed to object storage and scanned by a malware service; metadata and task state are stored in the primary encrypted RDBMS. Background jobs handle assignment matching, scheduled notifications and integrations; audit events are written to an immutable log store and analytics snapshots are stored in the reporting store for dashboards and exports. Integrations push/pull calendar items, send email/SMS, request e-signatures, and optionally call CAT tools. Encryption is applied in transit (TLS) and at rest; RBAC and tenant isolation controls govern access at every step.

4.5. Attack Surface Analysis

Primary attack surfaces include: (1) Public Web UI and API endpoints — risk: High (exposed to internet; mitigations: WAF, rate limiting, input validation, strong auth/MFA, RBAC); (2) Authentication/SSO integrations — risk: High (federated identity complexity; mitigations: strict SAML/OIDC config, MFA, PKI/claims validation); (3) File upload and processing pipeline — risk: High (malicious files, large volumes; mitigations: malware scanning, content-type validation, sandboxing, DLP, size limits); (4) Real-time WS and notification channels — risk: Medium (session hijack or unauthorized subscriptions; mitigations: token-based socket auth, strict access checks); (5) Third-party integrations (email/SMS/calendar/DocuSign/CAT) — risk: Medium (supply-chain/API abuse; mitigations: least-privilege credentials, monitoring, contractual security controls); (6) Background jobs and queues — risk: Medium (tampering with job payloads); mitigations: signed job payloads, access controls, logging; (7) Admin/management interfaces — risk: High (privileged operations); mitigations: dedicated admin roles, session timeout, audit trails, IP allowlists. Additional considerations: tenant isolation failures and misconfiguration can expose cross-agency data, so strict tenancy enforcement, CI/CD security checks, and regular penetration testing are required. Monitoring, SIEM alerts, and incident response play critical roles in detecting and containing attacks.

5. Threat Modeling

This section presents a comprehensive threat analysis of the system architecture and functional requirements. Threat modeling systematically identifies potential security vulnerabilities and attack vectors, enabling proactive risk mitigation through the application of appropriate security controls.

5.1. Threat Modeling Methodology

This analysis employs the STRIDE threat modeling methodology, a systematic framework developed by Microsoft for identifying security threats across six categories:

Spoofing Identity: Threats involving impersonation of users or systems
Tampering with Data: Threats involving unauthorized modification of data or system components
Repudiation: Threats where users deny performing actions (lack of non-repudiation)
Information Disclosure: Threats involving unauthorized access to sensitive information
Denial of Service: Threats causing disruption or unavailability of system services
Elevation of Privilege: Threats allowing unauthorized access to privileged functions

For each identified threat, the analysis evaluates likelihood (attack complexity and exposure) and impact (potential damage to confidentiality, integrity, or availability) to determine overall risk level. The methodology ensures comprehensive coverage of security concerns across all system components and interfaces.

5.2. Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment

5.2.1. Threat Overview

The following table provides a quick reference of all identified threats. Detailed analysis including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where available) is provided in the section below.

Threat ID	Component	Category	Risk Level	Likelihood	Impact
THR-001	User Management (Auth service / Identity Service / SSO)	Spoofing	Critical	High	High
THR-006	Application Services (RBAC)	Elevation of Privilege	Critical	High	High
THR-028	Application Services (Session handling / SPA)	Spoofing	Critical	High	High
THR-002	Frontend Layer	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-003	Edge & API Gateway	Denial of Service	High	Medium	High
THR-004	Application Services (APIs)	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-005	Frontend Layer / Application Services	Information Disclosure	High	High	Medium
THR-007	Data Storage (Relational DB / Object Storage)	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-008	File Management (Uploads & Previews)	Tampering	High	Low	High
THR-010	Integrations & External Services (DocuSign / Calendar / Email)	Spoofing	High	Medium	High
THR-012	Real-time Notifications (WebSockets/Push)	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-013	Observability & Audit	Repudiation	High	Medium	High
THR-015	File Management (Malware scanning integration)	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-016	Reporting & Exports (CSV/PDF)	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-018	Edge & API Gateway	Spoofing	High	Medium	High
THR-020	Data Storage (KMS / Key Management)	Elevation of Privilege	High	Low	High
THR-021	Integrations & External Services (CAT Tools / 3rd party translation vendors)	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-024	Edge & API Gateway	Information Disclosure	High	High	Medium
THR-026	Data Storage (Immutable Audit Store)	Tampering	High	Low	High
THR-030	Integrations & External Services (Agency IdPs)	Spoofing	High	Low	High
THR-009	Background & Queue Services	Denial of Service	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-011	Application Services (Assignment Engine)	Tampering	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-014	Notifications (Email/SMS)	Information Disclosure	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-017	Integrations & External Services (Calendar APIs)	Information Disclosure	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-019	Application Services (API endpoints)	Tampering	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-022	Background & Queue Services (File processing)	Repudiation	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-023	Frontend Layer (Accessibility / Multi-language)	Information Disclosure	Medium	Low	Medium
THR-025	Application Services (Activity feed / Comments)	Tampering	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-027	Integrations & External Services (Email/SMS Providers)	Denial of Service	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-029	Data Storage (Analytics Store / Reporting)	Information Disclosure	Medium	Medium	Medium

Total Threats Identified: 30

5.2.2. Detailed Threat Analysis

This section provides comprehensive analysis of each identified threat, including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where controls have been evaluated). Threats are organized by risk level for prioritized review.

Critical Risk Threats

THR-001 - User Management (Auth service / Identity Service / SSO)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: Critical
Description: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak passwords, or exploiting SSO misconfigurations (SAML/OIDC replay or assertion manipulation) to register/log in as Admin, Coordinator, or Agency User.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce MFA for all administrative and agency accounts; require strong password policies and adaptive/auth risk-based authentication; implement secure SSO configurations with strict audience, issuer, cert validation and short assertion lifetimes; monitor and block credential stuffing; enforce account lockout and anomaly detection; rotate IdP trust keys on schedule.
Controls Applied: MFA, Strict SAML/OIDC config, Adaptive auth, Account lockout
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-006 - Application Services (RBAC)

Category: Elevation of Privilege
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: Critical
Description: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant boundaries or gain Admin privileges through insecure checks in APIs or direct object reference manipulation.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce server-side RBAC and ABAC checks for every API endpoint; implement per-tenant authorization checks and ownership verification; use centralized authorization service, deny-by-default policies, and regular authorization tests; log privileged operations and alert anomalous privilege changes.
Controls Applied: Centralized RBAC, Tenant isolation, Authorization tests
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-028 - Application Services (Session handling / SPA)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: Critical
Description: Session cookie theft via XSS or insecure storage leads to account takeover; SPA storing tokens in localStorage increases risk of token theft by malicious scripts.
Mitigation Strategy: Avoid storing tokens in localStorage; use secure, HttpOnly cookies with SameSite protections; implement refresh tokens with rotation; set short lifetimes and revoke sessions on suspicious activity; harden against XSS.
Controls Applied: HttpOnly cookies, Token rotation
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

High Risk Threats

THR-002 - Frontend Layer

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Client-side code or assets are tampered (e.g., compromised CDN or supply chain) delivering malicious JS to users leading to credential theft or session hijacking.
Mitigation Strategy: Use subresource integrity (SRI) where applicable; serve critical JS from trusted origins; enable CSP with strict directives; sign and verify static assets; enforce strong CDN security and origin access; monitor for integrity changes; implement CSP reporting and SCA for dependencies.
Controls Applied: CSP, SRI, Signed assets
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-003 - Edge & API Gateway

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Large-scale or targeted request floods or slow POST attacks overwhelm gateway or backend services, preventing booking creation or critical operations (availability impact for government workflows).
Mitigation Strategy: Implement WAF rate limiting, per-tenant quotas, IP reputation blocks, WAF bot mitigation, autoscaling, circuit breakers, backpressure on queues, and use DDoS protection services; implement graceful degradation for non-critical features.
Controls Applied: WAF, DDoS Protection, Rate limiting
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-004 - Application Services (APIs)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL injection, NoSQL injection, or other injection attacks to alter booking data or corrupt workflows.
Mitigation Strategy: Use parameterized queries/ORMs, input validation and allowlists, stored procedures where appropriate; adopt strong ORM/DB access patterns; implement centralized input validation and WAF rules; perform code reviews and automated SAST/DAST; apply least-privilege DB accounts.
Controls Applied: Parameterized queries, Input validation, SAST/DAST
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-005 - Frontend Layer / Application Services

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams allowing escalation to session theft, data exfiltration, or unwanted actions with user context.
Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize and encode all user-supplied content server-side; use CSP and httpOnly, Secure cookies; implement Content Security Policy and input/output encoding libraries; validate file previews and remove embedded scripts in previews.
Controls Applied: Output encoding, CSP, Sanitization
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-007 - Data Storage (Relational DB / Object Storage)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in object storage or DB due to misconfigured permissions, leaked keys, or lack of encryption at rest.
Mitigation Strategy: Encrypt data at rest with customer-managed KMS keys; enforce object storage ACLs with per-tenant prefixes; implement fine-grained IAM roles and rotate credentials; enforce server-side access checks; conduct periodic permission audits and automated scanning for public buckets.
Controls Applied: KMS, Bucket ACLs, IAM least privilege
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-008 - File Management (Uploads & Previews)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (man-in-the-middle or integrity manipulation), leading to distribution of manipulated legal/government documents.
Mitigation Strategy: Use TLS for uploads; validate and store file hashes; maintain version history with immutable storage for audit; sign or notarize important documents; implement upload integrity checks and secure temporary storage; restrict file replacement operations and require approvals for edits to final documents.
Controls Applied: TLS, Immutable versions, File hashing
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-010 - Integrations & External Services (DocuSign / Calendar / Email)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Compromise of third-party integration tokens or misconfigured OAuth leads to unauthorized calendar/event creation, e-signature forgeries, or sending emails/SMS as the system.
Mitigation Strategy: Use secure OAuth with short-lived tokens and refresh token rotation; store secrets in vault/KMS and restrict access; implement least privilege scopes; validate third-party callback endpoints; implement out-of-band verification for critical e-signature flows.
Controls Applied: OAuth best practices, Secrets vault
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-012 - Real-time Notifications (WebSockets/Push)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel authorization is flawed or tokens are exposed, e.g., one tenant receives another agency’s task updates.
Mitigation Strategy: Authenticate and authorize every subscription with short-lived tokens; segregate channels by tenant ID; verify message recipients server-side before dispatch; encrypt payloads if needed; log subscribe/unsubscribe events.
Controls Applied: Channel authorization, Tenant segregation
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-013 - Observability & Audit

Category: Repudiation
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alter or delete logs, preventing forensic investigation of who created/approved bookings or changed assignments.
Mitigation Strategy: Use immutable, append-only log store with WORM retention; replicate logs to a separate secure environment; sign logs; restrict access to log write/delete operations; enable alerts on log volume/retention changes; monitor integrity of audit store.
Controls Applied: Immutable log storage, WORM retention, Log signing
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-015 - File Management (Malware scanning integration)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Malicious or weaponized documents bypass malware scanning via zero-day or scanner evasion and are distributed to interpreters/reviewers, resulting in endpoint compromise.
Mitigation Strategy: Use defense-in-depth: multiple scanning engines, sandbox file execution, strict preview sanitization, block risky file types, isolate downloads to secure viewer, maintain up-to-date scanning signatures and heuristics, and restrict who can download raw files.
Controls Applied: Multi-engine scanning, Sandboxing, Secure viewer
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-016 - Reporting & Exports (CSV/PDF)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Report export functionality exposes aggregated or raw PII if export permissions are weak or exports are cached/stored insecurely, leading to data leaks or bulk extraction via automation.
Mitigation Strategy: Restrict export permissions by role and tenancy; watermark/track exports; apply rate limits and require re-authentication for large exports; store exports in secure temporary storage with short TTL; review export content for PII minimization.
Controls Applied: Export RBAC, Watermarking, TTL storage
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-018 - Edge & API Gateway

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Session fixation or session token theft via insecure cookies, predictable tokens, or lack of binding to client leads to unauthorized API calls using another user’s session.
Mitigation Strategy: Use secure, HttpOnly, SameSite=strict cookies or token binding; enforce TLS; rotate session tokens on privilege changes; limit session lifetime and implement device session management; bind tokens to IP/device fingerprints for high-risk operations.
Controls Applied: Secure cookie flags, Session rotation
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-020 - Data Storage (KMS / Key Management)

Category: Elevation of Privilege
Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Compromise or misconfiguration of KMS permissions allows attackers to decrypt stored data, re-encrypt to hide activity, or create keys enabling persistent access to tenant data.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce strict IAM for KMS with limited principals; require multi-person approval for key deletion/rotation; audit KMS operations; use separate keys per tenant/classification; enable CMEK and key access logs to immutable store.
Controls Applied: KMS IAM, Key separation, Audit KMS ops
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-021 - Integrations & External Services (CAT Tools / 3rd party translation vendors)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Optional integration with external CAT tools may send source documents or PII to third parties with weaker controls, resulting in data exfiltration or vendor misuse.
Mitigation Strategy: Perform vendor security assessments and contractual SLAs; use encryption in transit and at rest; require explicit agency consent per document; provide option to keep data in-house; anonymize or redact PII before sending where possible.
Controls Applied: Vendor assessment, Contractual controls
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-024 - Edge & API Gateway

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Verbose error messages or stack traces returned by API gateway reveal internal architecture, DB queries, or sensitive identifiers aiding attackers in crafting targeted attacks.
Mitigation Strategy: Normalize and standardize error messages at edge; log detailed errors internally only; avoid leaking internal IDs or SQL errors to clients; implement structured error codes and document them for integrators.
Controls Applied: Error handling standardization, Central logging
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-026 - Data Storage (Immutable Audit Store)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Insider or privileged account modifies or deletes audit records in mutable stores before they are replicated to the immutable store to cover actions like unauthorized assignments.
Mitigation Strategy: Write audit events directly to immutable store or append-only pipeline; segregate duties so no single actor can both perform and erase actions; alert on audit write failures or missing replication; use cryptographic log signing.
Controls Applied: Write-only audit pipeline, Separation of duties
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-030 - Integrations & External Services (Agency IdPs)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Compromised agency IdP or weak federation mapping allows an attacker from an agency tenant to escalate privileges or impersonate another agency’s user due to flawed tenant mapping or federated claims trust.
Mitigation Strategy: Validate federated claims and tenant mapping strictly; use audience and org ID checks; implement per-IdP tenant boundaries and allowlist vetted IdPs; require additional attestation for cross-tenant actions; implement SCIM and periodic identity reconciliation.
Controls Applied: Federation validation, Per-IdP tenant mapping
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

Medium Risk Threats

THR-009 - Background & Queue Services

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversions or fake jobs) causing queue starvation, high costs, delayed notifications and assignment failures.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce job rate limits and per-tenant quotas; validate job origins and authenticate enqueuers; require signed job payloads; apply resource limits and cost controls; monitor queue depth and anomalous job patterns.
Controls Applied: Rate limiting, Job quotas
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-011 - Application Services (Assignment Engine)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Manipulating assignment logic or job payloads (e.g., by submitting crafted requests) to favor certain interpreters/translators or to bypass availability checks.
Mitigation Strategy: Validate assignment decisions server-side; sign/verify messages between microservices; create immutable assignment audit trail; implement input allowlists; rate-limit assignment-related endpoints; monitor for anomalies in assignment patterns.
Controls Applied: Server-side validation, Signed inter-service messages
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-014 - Notifications (Email/SMS)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Sensitive booking or PII included in email/SMS notifications could be intercepted or sent to wrong recipient due to template injection or address manipulation.
Mitigation Strategy: Avoid including PII in notifications; use templating with strict parameterization; validate recipient addresses; support secure links requiring authentication for details; log notification deliveries and failures; apply TLS for email delivery (MTA-STS, DANE where possible).
Controls Applied: Secure templates, TLS email delivery
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-017 - Integrations & External Services (Calendar APIs)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Calendar synchronization leaks sensitive booking details into external calendars if scope over-provisioning occurs or if tokens are stolen, exposing schedule and possibly PII externally.
Mitigation Strategy: Use minimal OAuth scopes, display clear consent to agency; allow optional redaction of event details; rotate tokens; restrict calendar sync to approved domains; log calendar API calls and detect abnormal sync volumes.
Controls Applied: Least-privilege OAuth, Token rotation
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-019 - Application Services (API endpoints)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) on state-changing endpoints (e.g., create/edit bookings) allows attackers to trigger actions in an authenticated user’s context.
Mitigation Strategy: Require anti-CSRF tokens for state-changing operations or use same-site cookies and validate Origin/Referer headers; require reauthentication for sensitive operations.
Controls Applied: CSRF tokens, SameSite cookies
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-022 - Background & Queue Services (File processing)

Category: Repudiation
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Background job failures or retries alter timestamps or state transitions without clear audit, allowing actors to deny actions (e.g., who approved a version) or hide malicious changes.
Mitigation Strategy: Create immutable event logs for job lifecycle; include job IDs and correlation IDs; idempotent processing and versioned state transitions; notify on unexpected job failures; preserve original timestamps where required.
Controls Applied: Immutable job logs, Idempotent jobs
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-023 - Frontend Layer (Accessibility / Multi-language)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Low | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Localization/i18n resource injection or misuse causes disclosure of environment data or secrets if translation strings are loaded from untrusted sources or include interpolated sensitive values.
Mitigation Strategy: Ship localization resources as part of built artifacts; sanitize and review translation strings; avoid runtime interpolation of secrets; restrict language packs from third-party sources; test localized UI for security-sensitive content leakage.
Controls Applied: Static localization, Translation review
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-025 - Application Services (Activity feed / Comments)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Comment @mentions or activity feed allow injection of links to malicious sites or SSRF payloads in user-supplied content, enabling server-side or client-side exploitation.
Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize and canonicalize links; restrict allowed URL schemes; render external links with rel=“noopener noreferrer” and warning UI; block internal IP ranges from being referenced; scan comments for malicious patterns.
Controls Applied: Link sanitization, SSRF protection
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-027 - Integrations & External Services (Email/SMS Providers)

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Third-party email or SMS provider outage causes missed urgent booking alerts and SMS alerts, impacting mission-critical scheduling and response.
Mitigation Strategy: Implement multi-provider fallback for SMS/email; queue outgoing notifications and retry with backoff; provide alternative in-app critical alerts; monitor provider SLAs and implement heartbeat checks.
Controls Applied: Multi-provider, Retry/backoff
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-029 - Data Storage (Analytics Store / Reporting)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Improper anonymization in analytics/reporting store exposes sensitive aggregates or individual PII through re-identification or by querying granular exports.
Mitigation Strategy: Apply differential privacy or strong anonymization; limit granularity for exported data; apply role-based access to analytics; monitor and limit ad-hoc query capabilities; sanitize report datasets.
Controls Applied: Anonymization, RBAC
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

Risk Reduction Summary:

Critical Risk Reduction: 3 threats reduced from Critical to lower levels
High Risk Reduction: 17 threats reduced from High to lower levels
Residual Risk Distribution: 0 threats remain at Critical/High level

5.3. Risk Summary

The highest priority threats center on authentication/authorization failures, data exposure of sensitive government documents and PII, and tampering of assignment and file workflows. Critical items include credential theft and SSO misconfiguration (THR-001), broken access control and privilege escalation across tenants (THR-006), session/token theft and XSS risk (THR-005, THR-028), and audit/log integrity issues preventing forensics (THR-013, THR-026). Key attack vectors are: credential stuffing and SSO assertion attacks; client-side and API injection vectors (XSS, SQLi, SSRF); misconfigured cloud storage or KMS leading to data exposure; compromised third-party integrations (calendar, DocuSign, CAT tools) leaking or modifying data; and resource exhaustion attacks against gateways and background processors. Priority security control areas: 1) Strong identity and access management — enforce MFA, robust SSO configuration, centralized RBAC and per-tenant authorization checks; 2) Data protection — encrypt-at-rest/in-transit, KMS segregation, strict object storage ACLs, and DLP for PII; 3) Application hardening — input validation, parameterized queries, CSP, sanitization, and secure session handling; 4) Integration security — least-privilege OAuth scopes, secrets management, vendor risk assessments and token rotation; 5) Observability & integrity — immutable audit logs, log signing, and monitoring/alerting for anomalous behavior; 6) Operational resilience — rate limits, quotas, DDoS protection and multi-provider redundancy for notifications. Addressing these areas will reduce critical risks to medium or low residual levels when controls are implemented effectively; remaining risks require ongoing review, regular testing (SAST/DAST/Pen Test), and a strong incident response capability.

6. Multi-Standard Security Requirements Mapping

This section maps each functional requirement to specific security controls from multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. This multi-standard approach provides comprehensive coverage across application-level, enterprise-level, and organizational-level security domains:

OWASP ASVS: Application-level security controls (code, APIs, authentication, session management)
NIST SP 800-53: Enterprise security controls (governance, risk management, incident response)
ISO 27001: Information security management controls (policies, procedures, organizational controls)

Requirements are prioritized based on risk assessment and compliance needs, with controls selected from the most appropriate standard(s) for each requirement type.

6.1. Recommended ASVS Compliance Level

Recommended Level: L2

Level 2: Standard

Recommended for most production applications. Provides comprehensive security coverage suitable for applications handling sensitive data or operating in regulated environments. Includes controls for authentication, authorization, data protection, and secure communications.

The recommendation considers factors such as:

Data sensitivity and classification levels
Regulatory and compliance requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.)
Threat landscape and risk assessment from threat modeling
Business criticality and potential impact of security incidents

All security controls referenced in this document align with this recommended compliance level.

6.2. Requirements Mapping

This section maps each high-level requirement to specific security controls from multiple standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed descriptions, relevance explanations, and integration guidance. Controls are grouped by standard for clarity.

6.2.1. REQ-001: User registration and login with email, SSO, and multi-factor authentication

OWASP ASVS Controls

V2.1

Requirement: Verify that authentication requirements for account creation and login use secure password handling, support for MFA, and integration with federated identity providers (SSO) where appropriate.

Relevance: Directly addresses secure registration and login mechanisms, including support for MFA and SSO integrations which are core to this requirement.

Integration Tips: Implement secure password storage (bcrypt/Argon2), provide MFA options (TOTP, FIDO2), and integrate SSO via standard protocols (OIDC/SAML) with secure token handling.

Verification Method: Review authentication design, inspect MFA and SSO configuration, and perform authentication flow tests including replay/resilience tests.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

IA-2

Requirement: Organizational users shall be uniquely identified and authenticated. Supports multi-factor authentication for access to privileged and sensitive accounts.

Relevance: Specifies unique identification and MFA for users — applicable to user registration and login flows to ensure strong authentication.

Integration Tips: Enforce unique IDs, require MFA for privileged roles, and document authentication assurance levels. Use identity provider metadata and secure token storage.

Verification Method: Inspect user account lifecycle, sample accounts for ANA/MFA enforcement, and verify logs show MFA usage for privileged accesses.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.4.2

Requirement: The allocation and use of privileged access rights shall be restricted and controlled. Secure authentication techniques should be used, including multi-factor where necessary.

Relevance: Reinforces controlled provisioning and the use of secure authentication, which maps to registration, login, and role-based privilege assignment.

Integration Tips: Establish access provisioning procedures that require MFA for elevated roles and periodic review of accounts. Document SSO integrations in supplier agreements.

Verification Method: Review provisioning procedures, sampling of privileged accounts, and evidence of MFA enforcement and periodic access reviews.

Priority: High

6.2.2. REQ-002: Role-based access control (Admin, Coordinator, Interpreter, Translator, Reviewer, Agency User)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V4.1

Requirement: Verify role-based access control is enforced server-side and follows the principle of least privilege; ensure separation of duties and role mappings are resistant to tampering.

Relevance: Directly applicable to implementing and enforcing RBAC for named roles in the system.

Integration Tips: Enforce RBAC checks server-side for every operation, map roles to least-privilege permissions, and protect role assignments from unauthorized changes.

Verification Method: Code and configuration review of authorization checks, role-permission matrix review, and tests attempting privilege escalation.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AC-2

Requirement: The organization manages information system accounts, establishing, activating, modifying, disabling, and terminating accounts and applying role-based privileges.

Relevance: Covers account lifecycle and role assignment processes essential to RBAC management across roles like Admin and Coordinator.

Integration Tips: Implement account lifecycle workflows with approval and audit trails for role changes. Integrate provisioning with SSO where appropriate.

Verification Method: Review account provisioning workflows, audit records for role changes, and test role deactivation scenarios.

Priority: Critical

AC-6

Requirement: The organization employs the principle of least privilege, ensuring users have the minimum privileges necessary to perform tasks.

Relevance: Affirms least-privilege enforcement for each RBAC role to reduce attack surface and privilege misuse.

Integration Tips: Define role scopes narrowly and implement permission review cadence; apply separation of duties where roles overlap.

Verification Method: Permission audits, automated checks for unused privileges, and penetration testing for privilege escalation.

Priority: High

6.2.3. REQ-003: User profiles capturing language pairs, certifications, availability, and vetting status

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.8

Requirement: Verify that personal data stored in user profiles is minimized, protected at rest and in transit, and access-controlled. Sensitive attributes such as certifications and vetting status must be protected and auditable.

Relevance: Directly applies to protecting profile attributes which may include PII and sensitive vetting/certification data.

Integration Tips: Classify profile fields, encrypt sensitive fields at rest, restrict access via RBAC and tenant controls, and log access to vetting/certification attributes.

Verification Method: Data classification review, check encryption of sensitive fields, and access log sampling for profile attribute reads.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

PL-2

Requirement: The organization determines and documents the security and privacy requirements for the system, including protection of personal data in user profiles.

Relevance: Ensures security/privacy requirements for profile data are documented and enforced across the system.

Integration Tips: Document privacy requirements, incorporate them into system design and contracts, and ensure controls (encryption, access restrictions) meet documented needs.

Verification Method: Check system security requirements documentation and traceability to implemented controls protecting profile data.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.8.2.3

Requirement: Information should be classified according to its value, sensitivity, and criticality; controls should be applied based on classification (e.g., personal data in user profiles).

Relevance: Supports classification of profile data to determine controls for certifications and vetting information.

Integration Tips: Define classification labels for profile attributes and map handling rules (access, retention, encryption) accordingly.

Verification Method: Review classification policy and evidence that profile fields are handled per classification (encryption, access controls).

Priority: High

6.2.4. REQ-004: Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/authorization separation

OWASP ASVS Controls

V4.6

Requirement: Verify tenant isolation and authorization boundaries in multi-tenant applications to prevent data leakage between tenants; enforce authorization checks per workspace.

Relevance: Directly addresses tenant/workspace isolation and prevents cross-tenant data access.

Integration Tips: Implement tenant identifiers in data access layers, enforce tenant-aware authorization checks for every request, and perform tenant separation testing.

Verification Method: Multi-tenant penetration tests, data access reviews ensuring tenant ID enforcement, and code review of authorization logic.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-7

Requirement: The information system monitors and controls communications at external and internal boundaries and isolates components as necessary.

Relevance: Applies to isolating tenant environments and monitoring flows between tenant boundaries.

Integration Tips: Use network and application boundaries (namespaces, VPCs, access controls) to isolate tenant data and monitor cross-tenant flows.

Verification Method: Network segmentation review, monitoring of inter-tenant communications, and boundary enforcement tests.

Priority: High

AC-4

Requirement: The information system enforces approved authorizations for controlling the flow of information among interconnected system components and tenants.

Relevance: Ensures information flow policies prevent unauthorized cross-tenant data movement.

Integration Tips: Implement information flow rules in middleware and enforce at data storage layer; audit and block illegal flows across tenants.

Verification Method: Review information flow policies, test attempts to access other tenants’ data, and examine enforcement logs.

Priority: High

6.2.5. REQ-005: Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings with scheduling and location details

OWASP ASVS Controls

V4.3

Requirement: Verify that business functions like creating, editing, and deleting resources enforce proper authorization checks and protect against insecure direct object references and tampering.

Relevance: Essential to prevent unauthorized booking modifications and enforce correct business rules.

Integration Tips: Validate authorization for each booking action server-side, implement object ID mapping to avoid IDORs, and validate scheduling constraints.

Verification Method: Functional tests for authorization enforcement, IDOR tests, and business logic fuzzing.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-2

Requirement: The organization defines auditable events for the information system, including creation, modification, and deletion of records.

Relevance: Requires logging create/edit/delete events for bookings to enable forensic and compliance needs.

Integration Tips: Log booking lifecycle events with user IDs, timestamps, and before/after states; protect logs from tampering.

Verification Method: Review audit log configuration and sample booking event logs for completeness and integrity.

Priority: High

SI-10

Requirement: The information system validates inputs to prevent malicious data that could affect scheduling and location information; ensure integrity checks.

Relevance: Protects against injection or malformed data in booking scheduling/location fields which could corrupt schedules or leak data.

Integration Tips: Apply strict server-side validation, canonicalize location inputs, and use geolocation APIs with validation.

Verification Method: Input validation tests, fuzzing location/scheduling fields, and review of validation code.

Priority: High

6.2.6. REQ-006: Create translation jobs with document upload, assignment, review, and versioned deliverables

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.5

Requirement: Verify secure handling of file uploads, including virus scanning, storage with access control, and prevention of direct access to uploaded files. Ensure versioning and integrity controls for document deliverables.

Relevance: Directly applies to secure upload, storage, scanning, and version control of translation documents.

Integration Tips: Scan files on upload, store in access-controlled object storage with signed URLs for downloads, and maintain immutable version metadata.

Verification Method: Review file upload pipeline, malware scan logs, access control configuration, and version history integrity.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

MP-4

Requirement: Protection of digital and non-digital media containing sensitive information, including proper access controls and handling of file storage.

Relevance: Addresses protection of stored translation artifacts and their controlled access.

Integration Tips: Apply encryption at rest, access controls per tenant/role, and document handling procedures for assignments and reviews.

Verification Method: Inspect storage encryption settings, access policies, and sample access records for document retrieval.

Priority: High

SI-3

Requirement: The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, which includes malware scanning of files and systems.

Relevance: Ensures uploaded documents are scanned to prevent malware spread during review and assignment.

Integration Tips: Integrate antivirus/anti-malware scanning in file ingestion and quarantine suspicious files; update signatures regularly.

Verification Method: Review scanning integration logs, test with benign test files, and check quarantine policies.

Priority: High

6.2.7. REQ-007: Automated assignment engine to match interpreters/translators by language, availability, certifications, and location

OWASP ASVS Controls

V2.6

Requirement: Verify business logic and automated decision-making enforce authorization, prevent abuse, and ensure correctness and fairness in matching algorithms.

Relevance: Directly applicable to validating logic, preventing abuse, and ensuring fairness and correctness in automatic matching.

Integration Tips: Design algorithm governance (inputs validation, auditability), include explainability logs for matches, and enforce authorization checks for assignment actions.

Verification Method: Review algorithm logic, perform tests for edge cases, and audit decision logs for correctness and bias.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

PL-8

Requirement: The organization incorporates privacy and security requirements into the system architecture, including considerations for automated decision processes and data minimization.

Relevance: Requires the assignment engine to adhere to privacy/data minimization and security by design.

Integration Tips: Minimize personal data used for matching, document privacy impacts, and enforce access and logging for automated decisions.

Verification Method: Architecture review, data flow analysis, and privacy impact assessment for the matching engine.

Priority: High

SA-5

Requirement: Security requirements for system components including custom algorithms should be specified and evaluated, ensuring integrity of automated assignment engines.

Relevance: Covers specifying security requirements for the automated engine component and ensuring its integrity.

Integration Tips: Define security requirements for algorithm components, conduct code review, and validate supplier libraries used by the engine.

Verification Method: Requirement traceability review, code audits, and component security assessments.

Priority: Medium

6.2.8. REQ-008: Task lifecycle management with configurable stages and progress tracking

OWASP ASVS Controls

V4.4

Requirement: Verify workflows enforce authorization at each stage, maintain integrity of state transitions, and prevent unauthorized manipulation of task lifecycle.

Relevance: Directly ensures lifecycle stages are authorized and state transitions cannot be tampered with.

Integration Tips: Implement state transition guards, validate user permissions at each stage change, and log transitions for auditability.

Verification Method: Workflow testing (attempting unauthorized transitions), code review of state machine, and log inspection.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-6

Requirement: The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records for indications of inappropriate or unusual activity affecting workflow and task states.

Relevance: Ensures monitoring of lifecycle changes to detect misuse or anomalies.

Integration Tips: Configure alerts for unusual state transitions, schedule regular audit reviews, and retain transition logs according to retention policy.

Verification Method: Review audit reports for lifecycle events and sample logs for anomaly detection.

Priority: Medium

CM-3

Requirement: The organization develops, documents, and maintains baseline configurations and enforces control over changes which applies to configurable workflow stages.

Relevance: Applies to managing configurable stages and ensuring changes are controlled and auditable.

Integration Tips: Treat workflow configurations as code with version control, approvals, and change management processes.

Verification Method: Inspect configuration change logs, code repository history, and approval records.

Priority: Medium

6.2.9. REQ-009: Attachments, comments, mentions (@mentions), and per-task activity logs

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.6

Requirement: Verify handling of user-provided content including attachments and comments, ensuring input validation, storage protection, and audit logging of user actions and mentions.

Relevance: Directly maps to protecting user-generated content and ensuring logs for actions and mentions.

Integration Tips: Validate and sanitize comments/mentions, restrict attachment types, protect stored content with access controls, and log all per-task interactions.

Verification Method: Content injection tests, file upload security tests, and auditing of comment and activity logs.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-8

Requirement: The information system time-stamps audit records to provide accurate sequencing of events in activity logs.

Relevance: Ensures activity logs for tasks include reliable timestamps for event sequencing and forensics.

Integration Tips: Use synchronized time sources (NTP), record timezone-aware timestamps, and protect timestamp integrity in logs.

Verification Method: Check log timestamps for consistency and NTP configuration; validate event sequencing in samples.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.4.3

Requirement: Administrator and operator activities shall be logged and the logs protected to ensure traceability, which extends to user activity logs for tasks.

Relevance: Supports requirement to log interactions and ensure traceability for auditing mentions and comments.

Integration Tips: Ensure activity logs are access-controlled and retained per policy; protect logs from tampering and provide audit capabilities.

Verification Method: Review logging policy, access controls on logs, and sample logs for completeness.

Priority: Medium

6.2.10. REQ-010: Real-time updates (notifications/WS) and an activity feed showing recent team actions

OWASP ASVS Controls

V3.7

Requirement: Verify secure use of real-time communication channels (WebSockets, SSE) including encrypted transport (TLS), authentication, and protection against message tampering and replay attacks.

Relevance: Directly applicable to implementing secure real-time updates and activity feeds.

Integration Tips: Use TLS for all real-time channels, authenticate connections (token-based), implement message integrity checks, and prevent replay with nonces or sequence numbers.

Verification Method: Review WebSocket/TLS configs, test message tampering/replay scenarios, and verify authentication enforcement on connections.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-8

Requirement: The information system protects the confidentiality and integrity of transmitted information.

Relevance: Ensures real-time feeds maintain confidentiality and integrity during transmission.

Integration Tips: Apply end-to-end TLS, minimize data in real-time payloads, and use authenticated encryption where appropriate.

Verification Method: Network captures to verify TLS usage and payload encryption; review transport-level configs.

Priority: High

SC-5

Requirement: The information system protects against or limits the effects of denial-of-service attacks, relevant to real-time notification channels.

Relevance: Important to maintain availability of real-time updates and activity feeds under load or attack.

Integration Tips: Implement rate-limiting, connection limits, and DDoS protection for real-time endpoints.

Verification Method: Load and DDoS simulation tests and monitoring of real-time channel availability.

Priority: Medium

6.2.11. REQ-011: File management: upload, preview, download, scanning, and file version history

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.5

Relevance: Direct match for secure file lifecycle management including scanning and versioning.

Integration Tips: Use quarantines for suspicious uploads, signed short-lived URLs for previews/downloads, and maintain immutable version metadata with checksums.

Verification Method: Review file handling pipeline, test upload of known-malicious test files, and verify version history integrity.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SI-3

Requirement: The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, which applies to handling uploaded documents via scanning.

Relevance: Mandates malware scanning for uploaded files to prevent malicious code propagation.

Integration Tips: Integrate enterprise-grade malware scanners and sandboxing for previewing files; maintain signature and heuristic updates.

Verification Method: Check malware scanning logs and sandboxing outcomes; periodic testing with EICAR/test samples.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.2.1

Requirement: Controls shall be implemented to detect and protect against malware, including scanning of files.

Relevance: Supports organizational requirement for malware protections in file management.

Integration Tips: Define operational procedures for malware handling in file operations and ensure timely updates and monitoring.

Verification Method: Operational policy review, scanning tool configuration inspection, and test evidence.

Priority: High

6.2.12. REQ-012: Role- and workspace-based file and task access controls

OWASP ASVS Controls

V4.1

Requirement: Verify role-based access control is enforced server-side and follows the principle of least privilege; ensure separation of duties and role mappings are resistant to tampering.

Relevance: Applies to ensuring files/tasks are accessible only according to role and workspace policies.

Integration Tips: Enforce RBAC with tenant-aware checks on file and task APIs, and prevent privilege escalation between workspaces.

Verification Method: Access control testing across roles, attempt unauthorized file access across workspaces, and code review.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AC-3

Requirement: The information system enforces approved authorizations for logical access to information and system resources, supporting role and attribute-based controls.

Relevance: Ensures enforcement mechanisms exist for role/workspace-based access at the system level.

Integration Tips: Implement centralized authorization service that evaluates role, workspace, and attributes before granting access.

Verification Method: Inspect authorization service logs, policy definitions, and run access matrix tests.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.1.1

Requirement: Access control policy shall be established based on business and information security requirements, including role and workspace specific restrictions.

Relevance: Mandates a policy foundation for role/workspace access controls.

Integration Tips: Document workspace access policies and map them to technical controls; include exception and review processes.

Verification Method: Policy review and evidence of policy enforcement through access logs and audits.

Priority: Medium

6.2.13. REQ-013: Email, in-app, and optional SMS notifications (assignments, status updates, mentions, approvals, daily summaries)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V3.8

Requirement: Verify that outbound email/SMS notifications use secure channels, proper authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), and protect sensitive content. Ensure user preferences and opt-outs are respected.

Relevance: Directly relevant to securing notification channels and protecting content/privacy preferences.

Integration Tips: Configure SPF/DKIM/DMARC, minimize sensitive data in messages, provide opt-out controls, and secure SMS providers with strong contracts and minimal data.

Verification Method: Inspect mail system configs, test header authentication, and review notification content for data leakage.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-13

Requirement: The information system implements cryptographic mechanisms to protect the confidentiality and integrity of information during transmission, such as notification messages.

Relevance: Ensures notifications transmitted over networks are protected in transit.

Integration Tips: Use TLS for API calls and webhooks, avoid sending sensitive data in plain-text notifications, and use signed tokens for webhook authenticity.

Verification Method: Network capture review to confirm TLS usage and inspection of outbound message payloads.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.13.2.3

Requirement: Information involved in electronic messaging shall be protected in accordance with the information transfer policies and procedures.

Relevance: Requires formal handling and protection of electronic notifications.

Integration Tips: Document messaging policies covering email/SMS/in-app channels and ensure provider contracts reflect security expectations.

Verification Method: Policy and contract review, plus sampling message handling procedures.

Priority: Medium

6.2.14. REQ-014: Dashboards and reporting: task statistics, productivity, exports (CSV/PDF)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.8

Requirement: Verify that reporting and export functionality enforces access control, minimizes sensitive data exposure, and provides aggregation or redaction where needed for privacy.

Relevance: Directly applies to securing dashboards and export features to prevent unauthorized data disclosure.

Integration Tips: Enforce RBAC for reports, redact or aggregate sensitive fields, and watermark or track exports with user identifiers.

Verification Method: Review report generation code, test exports under different roles, and verify redaction/aggregation.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

PL-2

Requirement: The organization determines and documents security and privacy requirements for systems, including reporting functions and export capabilities.

Relevance: Ensures reporting/export security requirements are documented and implemented.

Integration Tips: Include export controls in system requirements and ensure compliance via QA and privacy reviews.

Verification Method: Traceability review from requirements to implementation and testing of export controls.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.8.2.1

Requirement: Information shall be classified and handling procedures established; reports and exports should follow handling rules to prevent unauthorized disclosure.

Relevance: Mandates classification-driven handling for exported reporting data.

Integration Tips: Classify report outputs and apply handling rules (encryption, access controls) accordingly before allowing downloads.

Verification Method: Check classification labels on report datasets and verify enforcement of handling rules on exports.

Priority: Medium

6.2.15. REQ-015: Agency financial and performance reporting (spend, SLA metrics)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.8

Requirement: Verify that sensitive financial and performance data is protected, access is restricted based on role and tenancy, and reporting includes integrity checks and aggregation to limit exposure.

Relevance: Directly relevant to protecting financial reports and SLA metrics from unauthorized access or manipulation.

Integration Tips: Apply strong access controls, use integrity checks (hashes, signatures) on report data, and aggregate sensitive metrics where possible.

Verification Method: Access policy review for financial reports and verification of integrity controls on exported data.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

PL-2

Requirement: The organization determines and documents security and privacy requirements for systems, including financial reporting and metrics handling.

Relevance: Ensures that financial reporting requirements are specified and met by the system.

Integration Tips: Define compliance and integrity requirements for financial modules and enforce via secure development and testing.

Verification Method: Review requirements documentation and test financial reporting modules for access and integrity.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.18.1.4

Requirement: Ensure compliance with legal and contractual requirements related to processing and reporting financial and personal data.

Relevance: Useful if financial reports contain personal data or are subject to contractual obligations; supports compliance needs.

Integration Tips: Map legal/regulatory requirements to reporting features and apply contractual controls with agencies.

Verification Method: Legal/compliance review and evidence of controls meeting contractual requirements.

Priority: Medium

6.2.16. REQ-016: Integrations: Outlook/Teams calendar synchronization for bookings

OWASP ASVS Controls

V3.9

Requirement: Verify integration with third-party APIs uses secure OAuth flows, least privilege scopes, and token management with proper refresh and revocation handling.

Relevance: Directly applies to calendar sync integrations using OAuth (Microsoft Graph) to ensure secure access.

Integration Tips: Use OAuth authorization code flow with minimal scopes, store tokens securely, and implement token revocation and consent management.

Verification Method: Inspect OAuth flows, token storage, and scope usage; test token revocation and refresh.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SA-9

Requirement: The organization monitors and controls external system connections and uses contracts and security requirements for integrations.

Relevance: Requires oversight and contractual controls for external calendar integrations.

Integration Tips: Define integration security requirements in contracts, monitor API usage, and enforce secure API gateways.

Verification Method: Review contracts and API usage logs; confirm monitoring and alerting for integration anomalies.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.13.2.3

Requirement: Formal transfer policies, procedures and controls shall be in place to protect transferred information via networks and between organizations, including real-time feeds.

Relevance: Supports procedures for secure information transfer between system and calendar providers.

Integration Tips: Document data flows to/from calendar services, enforce encryption in transit, and limit shared data to necessary fields.

Verification Method: Data flow diagrams and checks that transfers use TLS and minimal data exchange.

Priority: Medium

6.2.17. REQ-017: Integrations: transactional email service, DocuSign (e-signatures), optional CAT tool integrations

OWASP ASVS Controls

V3.9

Requirement: Verify integration with third-party APIs uses secure OAuth flows, least privilege scopes, and token management with proper refresh and revocation handling.

Relevance: Applies across external integrations (email providers, DocuSign, CAT tools) to ensure secure API/authentication patterns.

Integration Tips: Use secure credential storage, least-privilege API credentials, and ensure revocation procedures are available for provider keys.

Verification Method: Review integration auth methods, secrets management, and test revocation scenarios.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SA-9

Requirement: The organization monitors and controls external system connections and uses contracts and security requirements for integrations.

Relevance: Provides actionable controls for monitoring and controlling third-party integrations.

Integration Tips: Monitor API calls, log integration activity, and enforce gateway policies to sanitize inputs/outputs with external services.

Verification Method: API gateway logs, monitoring dashboards, and incident records involving integrations.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.15.1.1

Requirement: Information security requirements for mitigating risks associated with supplier access to the organization’s assets should be agreed with suppliers.

Relevance: Mandates managing supplier/integration risks and contractual security requirements for services like DocuSign and email providers.

Integration Tips: Establish SLAs, security requirements, and audit rights in supplier contracts; limit data shared with suppliers.

Verification Method: Contract review for security clauses and evidence of supplier assessments.

Priority: High

6.2.18. REQ-018: Accessibility, responsive UI, and multi-language user interface

OWASP ASVS Controls

V1.3

Requirement: Verify secure design includes accessibility and localization considerations; ensure input validation and encoding are applied across localized interfaces to prevent injection.

Relevance: Ensures accessibility and localization do not introduce security issues like injection or broken validation.

Integration Tips: Ensure localized inputs are validated and encoded, review UI frameworks for accessibility features, and include accessibility in secure design reviews.

Verification Method: Localization input tests, accessibility compliance testing, and review of localized encoding handling.

Level: L1 | Priority: Medium

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SA-11

Requirement: Developers should adhere to secure development practices that include validating localized inputs and maintaining responsiveness and accessibility without compromising security.

Relevance: Encourages secure development processes that incorporate accessibility and localization testing.

Integration Tips: Include localization and accessibility in secure development lifecycle testing and threat models.

Verification Method: Secure SDLC artifacts showing localization/security tests and results.

Priority: Low

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.18.1.1

Requirement: Consider legal and regulatory requirements for accessibility and language support where applicable.

Relevance: Highlights legal/compliance obligations for accessibility and language — useful for design choices.

Integration Tips: Document applicable accessibility regulations (e.g., WCAG) and ensure UI meets required levels, balancing security and usability.

Verification Method: Compliance checklist and evidence of adherence to accessibility standards.

Priority: Low

6.2.19. REQ-019: Audit logging, immutable activity records, and configurable data retention

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10.1

Requirement: Verify that applications produce sufficient, tamper-evident audit logs for security-relevant events, protect log integrity, and support configurable retention policies.

Relevance: Directly addresses immutable logs and configurable retention for audit needs.

Integration Tips: Use append-only storage (WORM or cloud object locking) for logs, protect log access and support configurable retention periods per policy.

Verification Method: Inspect log storage settings, retention configurations, and tamper-evidence mechanisms.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-2

Requirement: The organization defines auditable events and the information system generates audit records for those events, protecting them from unauthorized modification.

Relevance: Requires definition and generation of auditable events covering activity records.

Integration Tips: Define audit event catalog, ensure events include sufficient context and secure log transport to protected stores.

Verification Method: Event catalog review and spot-checks of generated audit records.

Priority: High

AU-9

Requirement: Audit records shall be protected against unauthorized access, modification, and deletion.

Relevance: Specifically enforces protection of logs from tampering and deletion.

Integration Tips: Restrict access to logs, use cryptographic integrity checks, and replicate logs to an immutable store.

Verification Method: Access control review for logs, checksum verification, and comparison across replicas.

Priority: High

6.2.20. REQ-020: Security, encryption, malware scanning, data loss prevention, and incident response controls

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.1

Requirement: Verify sensitive data is protected using strong cryptography in transit and at rest, keys are managed securely, and data loss prevention measures are applied where necessary.

Relevance: Covers encryption and DLP requirements for protecting data in the system.

Integration Tips: Use TLS 1.2+/strong ciphers for transport, AES-256 for data at rest where required, and integrate DLP controls for sensitive document detection.

Verification Method: Cryptography configuration reviews, key management audits, and DLP rule testing.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SI-3

Requirement: The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, which includes malware scanning of files and systems.

Relevance: Mandates malware scanning for files and systems to prevent compromise via uploads or attachments.

Integration Tips: Deploy anti-malware on endpoints and scanning in file pipelines, maintain signature updates and sandbox analysis for unknown files.

Verification Method: Malware scan logs, update records, and sandbox analysis evidence.

Priority: High

IR-4

Requirement: The organization tests incident response capabilities and maintains incident response plans to detect, respond, and recover from incidents.

Relevance: Directly applicable to incident response planning and testing for security events affecting the platform.

Integration Tips: Develop and exercise IR plans covering data breaches, malware events, and DLP incidents; integrate with monitoring and alerting.

Verification Method: IR plan documentation, tabletop exercise evidence, and post-incident reviews.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.6.1

Requirement: Require a process to identify, assess and remedy technical vulnerabilities and to manage incidents, including DLP and malware controls.

Relevance: Provides organizational-level controls for vulnerability and incident handling tied to malware and DLP.

Integration Tips: Implement vulnerability management program, patching cadence, and incident handling processes aligned to ISO requirements.

Verification Method: Vulnerability scan reports, patch records, and incident management metrics.

Priority: High

6.3. Cross-Functional Security Controls

The following controls apply globally across all system components:

Logging and Audit

Description: Centralized, tamper-evident logging for security-relevant events (authentication, authorization changes, file access, workflow transitions), timestamps, and configurable retention.

Applies to: all requirements (authentication, RBAC, file management, workflows, notifications, integrations)

Implementation Guidance: Use append-only storage or cloud object locking for logs, central SIEM for aggregation/analysis, protect logs with RBAC and cryptographic integrity, and implement retention policies tied to compliance.

Encryption (Transit and At-Rest)

Description: Use strong cryptographic protections for data in transit (TLS) and at rest (AES-256 or equivalent), including keys managed by an HSM or KMS.

Applies to: authentication tokens, profile data, files, notifications, integrations, backups

Implementation Guidance: Enforce TLS across endpoints, encrypt sensitive fields in databases, use managed KMS/HSM for key lifecycle, and ensure encryption configuration is regularly audited.

Access Control and Authorization

Description: Centralized authorization enforcement (RBAC/ABAC) with tenant/workspace awareness and least-privilege principles.

Applies to: user accounts, files, tasks, dashboards, integrations, admin functions

Implementation Guidance: Implement a centralized policy engine for authorization checks, require server-side enforcement for all APIs, and maintain role/permission catalogs with periodic reviews.

Secure Integration and Third-Party Management

Description: Contractual and technical controls for third-party integrations (OAuth scopes, token management, supplier security requirements).

Applies to: calendar sync, email providers, DocuSign, CAT tools

Implementation Guidance: Use least-privilege OAuth scopes, store credentials securely, include security clauses in contracts, and monitor third-party API usage and anomalies.

Malware and DLP Controls

Description: File scanning, sandboxing, and data loss prevention controls for uploaded documents and email attachments.

Applies to: file upload/preview/download, document workflows, email integrations

Implementation Guidance: Integrate AV scanners and sandboxing into file ingestion, configure DLP rules for sensitive content, and quarantine or block suspicious files.

6.4. Requirements Traceability Overview

This section demonstrates complete traceability from high-level requirements through threats to security controls and verification methods.

Coverage Summary: Traceability matrix contains 20 requirements. 19 requirements (95.0%) linked to threats. 20 requirements (100.0%) mapped to security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001). Coverage: Complete.

Sample Traceability Mappings

The following table shows traceability for high-priority requirements:

Req ID	Requirement	Threats	Security Controls	Standards	Priority	Verification
REQ-001	User registration and login with email, …	10 threats	3 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review provisioning procedures, sampling of privileged accounts, and evidence of MFA enforcement and periodic access reviews.
REQ-002	Role-based access control (Admin, Coordi…	8 threats	3 controls	NIST, OWASP	Critical	Permission audits, automated checks for unused privileges, and penetration testing for privilege escalation.
REQ-003	User profiles capturing language pairs, …	10 threats	3 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Check system security requirements documentation and traceability to implemented controls protecting profile data.
REQ-004	Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/au…	0 threats	3 controls	NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review information flow policies, test attempts to access other tenants’ data, and examine enforcement logs.
REQ-005	Create, edit, and delete interpreting bo…	5 threats	3 controls	NIST, OWASP	Critical	Functional tests for authorization enforcement, IDOR tests, and business logic fuzzing.
REQ-006	Create translation jobs with document up…	9 threats	3 controls	NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review scanning integration logs, test with benign test files, and check quarantine policies.
REQ-011	File management: upload, preview, downlo…	7 threats	3 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Check malware scanning logs and sandboxing outcomes; periodic testing with EICAR/test samples.
REQ-012	Role- and workspace-based file and task …	10 threats	3 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Access control testing across roles, attempt unauthorized file access across workspaces, and code review.
REQ-015	Agency financial and performance reporti…	6 threats	3 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Legal/compliance review and evidence of controls meeting contractual requirements.
REQ-019	Audit logging, immutable activity record…	10 threats	3 controls	NIST, OWASP	Critical	Inspect log storage settings, retention configurations, and tamper-evidence mechanisms.

Showing 10 of 20 requirements. See Appendix D for complete traceability matrix.

Traceability Statistics

Total Requirements Tracked: 20
Requirements Linked to Threats: 19 (95.0%)
Requirements Mapped to Controls: 20 (100.0%)
Average Controls per Requirement: 3.0
Control Distribution by Standard:
- NIST SP 800-53: 29 controls
- OWASP ASVS: 20 controls
- ISO 27001: 12 controls
Verification Coverage: 100% (all requirements have verification methods)

7. AI/ML Security Requirements

This section addresses security requirements specific to artificial intelligence and machine learning components within the system. AI/ML systems introduce unique security challenges including prompt injection attacks, data poisoning, model theft, adversarial inputs, and bias vulnerabilities. This analysis identifies AI/ML components, assesses their security risks, and prescribes specialized controls to protect both the AI systems themselves and the data they process.

7.1. AI/ML Components Detected

This section identifies all AI/ML components within the system that require specialized security controls.
1. Automated Assignment Engine: Utilizes machine learning algorithms to match interpreters and translators with tasks based on language pairs, availability, and certifications.
2. Task Lifecycle Management: Employs AI to track task progress and make recommendations for task assignments.
3. Real-Time Updates System: May involve AI-driven notification systems to inform users of changes in task status or new assignments.

7.2. AI/ML Threat Model

Component	Identified Threats
Automated Assignment Engine	- Model poisoning - Data leakage through training data - Adversarial inputs - Prompt injection
Task Lifecycle Management	- Input validation vulnerabilities - Output filtering issues - Adversarial inputs
Real-Time Updates System	- Rate limiting and abuse potential - Data leakage through notifications

7.3. AI/ML Security Controls

Automated Assignment Engine

Prompt Injection Prevention: Implement strict input validation to prevent malicious prompts from altering task assignments.
Data Leakage Prevention: Ensure that no personally identifiable information (PII) is included in the training data and prompt inputs.
Model Access Controls: Limit access to the model to authorized personnel only.
Monitoring for Adversarial Inputs: Deploy monitoring systems to detect unusual patterns in input data indicative of adversarial attacks.

Task Lifecycle Management

Input Validation for AI Inputs: Validate inputs rigorously to mitigate injection attacks and ensure expected formats.
Output Filtering and Sanitization: Filter outputs to remove any sensitive information that could be exploited.
Model Versioning and Rollback Capabilities: Maintain version control for models to allow rollback in case of identified vulnerabilities or failures.

Real-Time Updates System

Rate Limiting and Abuse Prevention: Implement rate limiting for notifications to prevent abuse and reduce the risk of denial-of-service attacks.
Monitoring for Adversarial Inputs: Monitor system interactions for signs of adversarial manipulation in real-time notifications.

7.4. Integration with Existing Security Controls

The AI/ML security controls integrate with standard security practices by enhancing existing frameworks like access control, input validation, and incident response. AI-specific controls such as monitoring for adversarial inputs complement traditional cybersecurity measures, ensuring a holistic security posture that protects both AI components and the overall application.

7.5. AI/ML Monitoring Requirements

Monitoring Area	Description
Input Validation Monitoring	Track invalid input attempts to prevent injection attacks.
Output Monitoring	Analyze output for sensitive data leaks or anomalies.
Adversarial Input Detection	Employ anomaly detection algorithms to identify adversarial patterns in inputs.
Access Control Logging	Maintain logs of model access attempts and changes to ensure compliance and traceability.

8. Compliance Requirements

This section identifies regulatory and legal compliance obligations applicable to the system based on data types, geographic scope, industry sector, and business operations. Compliance requirements drive specific security controls, data handling procedures, audit capabilities, and privacy protections. Non-compliance can result in significant legal penalties, reputational damage, and business disruption. This analysis maps applicable regulations to specific security requirements and operational procedures.

8.1. Applicable Regulations

The compliance requirements for the Interpreter & Translator Service Management Application were identified based on the types of data processed (such as personal, health, and financial data), the geographic scope (focusing on EU, US, and other regions), and the specific operations involved (government collaboration and service provision). Given the multifaceted nature of the application, which handles sensitive data across various contexts, multiple regulations apply. Compliance requirements directly influence security controls, data handling procedures, and operational processes to ensure that the application adheres to legal standards.

Regulation	Applicability Reason
GDPR	Applies because the system processes personal data of EU residents, including user profiles and communication.
CCPA	Applies due to the potential handling of personal data of California residents, granting them specific privacy rights.
HIPAA	Applies if any health-related information is processed, especially in the context of interpreter services for healthcare providers.
PCI-DSS	Applies if payment card information is handled, particularly for any financial transactions related to service bookings.
SOX	Applies for financial reporting and auditing requirements related to government agency budgets and expenditures.
COPPA	May apply if any data is collected from children under 13, particularly in user registrations.
Data residency laws	Applies as the application may need to comply with location-specific data storage and processing laws.

8.2. Compliance Controls by Regulation

CCPA

Provide a clear privacy notice at or before data collection.
Allow consumers to opt-out of the sale of personal data.
Implement procedures for verifying consumer requests for data access and deletion.

HIPAA

Ensure that only authorized personnel can access health-related data.
Implement audit controls to track access and modifications to health information.
Provide training for employees on HIPAA compliance and data handling.

PCI-DSS

Utilize secure payment processing solutions that comply with PCI-DSS standards.
Implement strong access control measures for payment data handling.
Regularly test security systems and processes for vulnerabilities.

SOX

Maintain accurate financial records and ensure their integrity through proper access controls.
Conduct regular internal audits to assess compliance with financial reporting requirements.

COPPA

Obtain parental consent before collecting personal data from children under 13.
Provide clear privacy notices outlining data collection practices for minors.

Data residency laws

Ensure data storage solutions comply with local regulations regarding data residency.
Implement geographical access controls to restrict data processing based on location.

8.3. Data Subject Rights

Right	Description
Right to Access	Users can request access to their personal data held by the application.
Right to Rectification	Users can request corrections to inaccurate personal data.
Right to Deletion	Users can request the deletion of their personal data under certain conditions.
Right to Data Portability	Users can request their data in a structured, commonly used format.
Right to Object	Users can object to the processing of their personal data for specific purposes.

8.4. Privacy Requirements

Consent: Users must provide explicit consent prior to data collection, particularly for sensitive information.
Privacy Notice: A detailed privacy notice must be provided to users outlining data processing activities, rights, and contact information for inquiries.

8.5. Audit and Monitoring Requirements

Logging: Maintain comprehensive logs of user access and modifications to data, ensuring they are immutable and regularly reviewed.
Audit Trails: Implement audit trails to track changes in the application, particularly for sensitive data and financial transactions.

8.6. Data Handling Rules

Retention: Personal data should be retained only as long as necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, with defined retention periods for different data types.
Deletion: Procedures must be established to ensure secure deletion of personal data upon user request or after the retention period has expired.

8.7. Compliance Risk Assessment

The compliance landscape for this application is multifaceted, with various risks associated with the handling of sensitive data. Regular assessments should be conducted to identify and mitigate potential compliance risks.

Key Compliance Risks:

Risk of unauthorized access to personal data due to insufficient security controls.
Risk of non-compliance with GDPR, CCPA, and HIPAA due to inadequate user consent mechanisms.
Risk of data breaches resulting from inadequate incident response protocols and lack of encryption.

9. Security Architecture Recommendations

This section provides comprehensive security architecture guidance that integrates security controls into the system’s technical design. Security architecture defines how security principles, controls, and patterns are applied across system components to create a cohesive, defense-in-depth security posture. The recommendations address architectural principles, component-level controls, data protection strategies, and third-party integration security to ensure security is built into the system design.

9.1. Architectural Security Principles

Architectural security principles provide the foundational philosophy guiding all security design decisions. These principles ensure a consistent security posture across all system components, guide trade-offs, and determine which controls are applied where to protect sensitive government data, enforce compliance, and maintain operational resilience.

Zero Trust Architecture principles: Never trust, always verify. All access requests (users, services, devices) must be authenticated and authorized, and trust must be continuously evaluated based on identity, device posture, context, and least privilege to limit lateral movement and data exposure.
Defense in Depth: Multiple independent layers of controls (network, edge, application, data, identity) so that failure or compromise of one control does not result in full system compromise; layers provide overlapping protections and detection opportunities.
Principle of Least Privilege: Grant users, services, and integrations only the minimum permissions and scope needed to perform their tasks; reduce blast radius and attack surface by scoping roles, API scopes, and resource access tightly.
Secure by Default / Secure by Design: Systems and components are deployed with conservative secure defaults (e.g., secure TLS, no public credentials, strong cipher suites) and security is considered throughout the design, development, and deployment lifecycle.
Separation of Duties: Critical workflows (e.g., approval of high-risk bookings, role provisioning, financial report exports) require distinct roles and approvals to prevent fraud, mistake, or privilege abuse.
Fail Secure / Fail Closed: On failures (e.g., authentication provider unreachable, degraded service), default to denying access or reducing capability rather than allowing insecure fallbacks; degrade gracefully while preserving confidentiality and integrity.
Complete Mediation: Enforce authorization on every access attempt and every resource, at every call, rather than trusting prior checks or client-side enforcement (deny-by-default).
Assume Breach / Resilience: Design for detection, containment, and rapid recovery; assume adversaries may bypass preventive controls and plan monitoring, segmentation, and incident response accordingly.
Privacy by Design & Data Minimization: Collect and persist only the data necessary for business function; protect PII and vetting data with stronger controls and explainability for automated decisions.
Auditability & Tamper-Evidence: Ensure all security-relevant events are logged with tamper-evident mechanisms, timestamps, and sufficient context to support forensics and compliance.
Trusted Supply Chain & Secure Integrations: Treat third-party services and libraries as part of the security boundary — enforce contractual requirements, vet suppliers, and isolate integrations with least-privilege and hardened connectors.

9.2. Component-Level Security Controls

Frontend User Interface

Required Controls:

Enforce TLS (TLS 1.2+) for all client-server traffic and use HSTS
Strict Content Security Policy (CSP) to mitigate XSS
Client-side input validation complemented by server-side validation
Secure session handling (short-lived tokens, refresh tokens with rotation, secure cookies with SameSite/HttpOnly)
Accessibility and localization input encoding to prevent injection via i18n
Sanitize file preview streams and render in secure sandboxed viewers
CSP, SRI for third-party scripts and strict dependency vetting
Client telemetry/logging of suspicious user flows (privacy-aware)

Recommended Patterns:

Serve SPA via CDN with WAF in front to block common attacks
Use OAuth/OIDC + SSO via Identity service and short-lived access tokens
Token storage using in-memory or secure HTTP-only cookies (avoid localStorage for tokens)
Progressive enhancement with graceful degradation when security controls block unsafe content
Integrate Content Security Policy and Subresource Integrity (SRI)
Use feature flags and controlled rollouts for UI changes

Edge & API Gateway

Required Controls:

TLS termination and HTTP Strict Transport Security
Web Application Firewall (WAF) with OWASP ruleset and custom rules for business logic abuse
Rate limiting, per-tenant quotas, and bot detection
Edge authentication enforcement (JWT/OAuth introspection) and tenant-awareness
IP allowlisting for administrative or integration endpoints (where applicable)
Edge TLS mutual authentication (mTLS) for partner service endpoints
Edge logging with redaction of PII and injection to SIEM
Request validation and payload size limits

Recommended Patterns:

API Gateway for unified auth, routing, throttling, and enterprise-grade observability
Use API keys for machine-to-machine but prefer OAuth2 client credentials for external integrations
Edge WAF + DDoS protection (cloud-managed scrubbing) and failover endpoints
Centralized API policy engine for scope-based authorization and per-tenant routing

Application Services

Required Controls:

Centralized identity and access management integration (OIDC/SAML) and MFA enforcement
Server-side RBAC/ABAC checks with tenant/workspace context on every API
Input validation, output encoding, and strong parameterized DB queries to prevent injection
Secure secrets handling (KMS-backed secrets management)
Business-logic anti-abuse controls (rate limits, anomaly detection) for assignment engine
Immutable audit events emission for security-relevant actions
Service-to-service authentication (mTLS or short-lived OAuth tokens) and mutual authorization
Enforce configurable workflow guards and state transition validation

Recommended Patterns:

Microservices or modular service boundaries with service mesh for mTLS and policy enforcement
Authorization service/policy engine (OPA, AWS IAM policies, or similar) for centralized RBAC/ABAC
Circuit breakers, retries with jitter, and backpressure controls in background/processing flows
Use token introspection for verifying user/session context at service entry points

Data Storage

Required Controls:

Encryption at rest with KMS-managed keys and envelope encryption for files and DB
Field-level encryption for sensitive PII, vetting/certification attributes, and financial data
Tenant-aware data partitioning (logical schema separation and row-level tenancy IDs)
Access controls and database auditing for reads/writes of sensitive tables
Backups encrypted and stored with appropriate separation and retention controls
Database activity monitoring and anomaly detection
Strong DB credentials rotation and least-privilege DB access patterns

Recommended Patterns:

Encrypted relational DB with Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) + column-level encryption for high-sensitivity fields
Object storage for files with server-side encryption (SSE-KMS) and short-lived signed URLs for downloads/previews
Immutable audit/log store using WORM/Cloud Object Lock for audit retention
Use separate logical databases or schemas per major tenant/agency for stronger isolation where required

Background & Queue Services

Required Controls:

Message queue encryption in transit and at rest, with scoped access policies
Strict validation of job payloads and avoid embedding sensitive data in queue messages (use references/IDs)
Processing nodes run with minimal privileges and ephemeral credentials (short-lived)
Job integrity verification (signatures/checksums) before processing files
Sandbox and quarantine workflow integration for scanned files
Retry/backoff policies, dead-letter queues, and monitoring for processing anomalies

Recommended Patterns:

Use cloud-managed message queues with IAM-based access control and encryption
Worker pools behind autoscaling groups with least-privilege instance profiles
Use sidecar or centralized scanning service to offload malware/sandboxing before publish
Use idempotent job design and stateful orchestration (workflow engine like Temporal/Step Functions)

Integrations & External Services

Required Controls:

Secure OAuth flows (Authorization Code with PKCE for delegated flows) and client credentials for M2M
Least-privilege scopes and token rotation + revocation support
Secure storage of integration secrets (KMS/HSM-backed secrets manager)
Input/output validation and strict schema enforcement for data received from external services
Monitoring, alerting, and baseline profiling of integration usage

Recommended Patterns:

Use integration gateway/proxy to centralize outgoing API calls, rate limiting, and credential management
Apply service isolation for third-party connectors and apply API contracts/stubs for testing
Use signed webhook tokens and request validation (HMAC signatures) for inbound webhooks

Observability & Audit

Required Controls:

Centralized logging to an immutable/tamper-evident log store with role-restricted access
Structured logs with consistent context (tenant ID, user ID, request ID) and timezone-aware timestamps
Audit events for authentication/authorization changes, file access, workflow transitions, and exports
SIEM integration for correlation, alerting, and threat hunting
Log integrity controls (hash chains or signed log ingestion) and cross-region replication

Recommended Patterns:

Push logs via secure log-forwarder to SIEM and long-term WORM-enabled storage
Use tracing (distributed context propagation) for performance and security incident triage
Automated retention and legal-hold capability, with exportable audit packages for compliance

9.3. Data Protection Strategy

Data Classification: Public, Internal, Confidential, Restricted

Public: Non-sensitive UI text, marketing or publicly accessible status pages.
Internal: Operational metadata, non-identifying telemetry and non-sensitive configuration.
Confidential: User PII (name, email), interpreter/translator profiles, language pairs, availability.
Restricted: Vetting/certification status, government-sensitive documents, financial spend per agency, signed documents, audit logs (where policy requires immutability).

Encryption Requirements:

Transport: TLS 1.3 preferred, TLS 1.2 minimum with strong cipher suites (AEAD ciphers e.g., TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384). Enforce HSTS and modern TLS settings; disable legacy TLS/SSL and weak ciphers.
Data at rest:
- Use AES-256-GCM for block encryption of storage volumes and object stores.
- Use TDE for relational databases and envelope encryption with KMS-managed keys for columns containing Confidential/Restricted fields.
- Field-level encryption for Restricted fields using client or server-side encryption based on use-case (e.g., vetting documents).
Keys and algorithms:
- Asymmetric keys: RSA 3072+ or ECC P-384 for signing and key exchange where needed.
- Symmetric keys: AES-256-GCM for encryption, HMAC-SHA256 or SHA-384 for integrity where required.
- Use KMS/HSM for key lifecycle management, key rotation at least annually (or per policy), and support for key versioning and destruction policies.
Token and secrets:
- Short-lived access tokens (minutes to hours), refresh tokens stored securely and rotated.
- Secrets and API keys stored in KMS-backed secrets manager; do not embed in code.

Retention Policies:

Audit logs: Retain initial immutable copies for a minimum period required by law (e.g., 7 years for government contexts — align with agency policy); provide WORM and legal hold capability.
User profiles (PII): Retain while account active and for a configurable grace period (e.g., 1 year) after account deletion unless legal hold applies.
Uploaded documents: Retain per agency policy and classification; default retention e.g., Confidential: 2 years, Restricted: 7 years, adjustable per agency contract.
Backups: Retain according to recovery and compliance needs (e.g., daily backups retained 30 days, monthly retained 1 year), encrypted and access-controlled.
Deletion: Support secure deletion and cryptographic erasure; maintain an auditable deletion workflow including soft-delete and final purge with retention windows.

Handling Procedures:

Access:
- Enforce least-privilege via centralized authorization engine that evaluates role, tenant, and attributes.
- Log and alert on anomalous access patterns (e.g., bulk exports, cross-tenant access attempts).
Transmission:
- Always use TLS for inter-service and external communications; use mTLS for partner connections where possible.
- Minimize sensitive data in message buses; reference objects rather than embedding full payloads.
Storage:
- Store documents in object storage with SSE-KMS and per-object metadata including checksum and version.
- Use signed, short-lived URLs for downloads/previews (minimum TTL and single-use for high sensitivity).
Deletion and Disposal:
- Implement soft-delete with retention windows and an irreversible purge workflow; for encrypted content, use key destruction for crypto-erase where acceptable.
- Maintain deletion audit trails and support legal hold overrides.
Data Minimization:
- Avoid unnecessary replication of Restricted data into analytics stores; use aggregated or redacted datasets for reporting.
DLP and Malware:
- Scan all uploads with AV and sandboxing; apply DLP scanning for sensitive patterns (e.g., national IDs, classified terms) and enforce quarantine/blocking workflows.
Key Management:
- Enforce KMS/HSM-based key lifecycle with role separation for key administration.
- All keys have defined rotation and retirement procedures and audit logs for key operations.

9.4. Third-Party Integration Security

Agency Identity Providers (SAML/OIDC)

Security Requirements:

Use federated SSO via SAML2 or OIDC with signed assertions and robust assertion validation
Enforce MFA at IdP level for access to privileged or sensitive agency workspaces
Validate and pin IdP metadata and certificates; support metadata refresh with secure validation
Support SCIM or provisioning API for lifecycle integration where needed
Audit federation events and support token revocation and session termination

Risk Assessment: High - Identity federation is critical; compromise or misconfiguration could allow unauthorized access across agencies.

Recommended Controls:

Require IdP metadata verification and certificate pinning
Use short-lived tokens and perform token introspection at API gateway
Implement JIT provisioning with approval workflows and periodic account reconciliation
Enforce per-tenant trust relationships and restrict IdP scopes to necessary attributes
Monitor and alert for unusual federation events (e.g., unexpected user provisioning)

Email Provider (Transactional Email)

Security Requirements:

Use authenticated SMTP or API with strong API keys or OAuth
Enforce SPF, DKIM, and DMARC for outgoing mail domains
Minimal sensitive data in email content; use links pointing to authenticated application rather than content
Support bounce handling and signed webhooks for provider callbacks

Risk Assessment: Medium to High - Potential for data leakage or spoofing; abused for phishing and impersonation.

Recommended Controls:

Enforce SPF/DKIM/DMARC and monitor domain reputation
Use templating engine with redaction for sensitive info
Securely store email provider credentials and rotate periodically
Monitor outbound email volumes and anomalous patterns; rate-limit notifications

SMS Provider

Security Requirements:

Use API keys or OAuth for provider access stored in secrets manager
Avoid sending sensitive details over SMS (use OTP references or secure link)
Support opt-in/opt-out and consent management

Risk Assessment: Medium - SMS is inherently less secure; risk of SIM-swap or interception for OTP usage.

Recommended Controls:

Use SMS only for low-sensitivity alerts or second-factor with backup MFA options
Throttle SMS sending and monitor for abnormal usage
Require providers to have contractual SLAs and data handling policies

Outlook / Microsoft Teams Calendar (Microsoft Graph API)

Security Requirements:

Use OAuth2 Authorization Code with least-privilege scopes and incremental consent
Use per-tenant delegated access or application permissions limited in scope
Support token refresh and revocation; store tokens securely
Follow Microsoft guidance for app consent and admin consent flows

Risk Assessment: High - Calendar sync can leak scheduling/location/participant PII across systems.

Recommended Controls:

Limit scopes to calendar.* rather than mail.* and request lowest privileges necessary
Use consent and admin-approval flows; implement per-agency tenant consent boundaries
Rate limit sync operations and implement backoff; log calendar events access
Validate calendar data and sanitize before rendering or exporting

DocuSign (E-signatures)

Security Requirements:

Use OAuth2 integration with minimal scopes
Ensure secure storage and transit of signed documents; apply integrity checks
Support webhook verification (HMAC signatures) and secure callback endpoints

Risk Assessment: High - Signed documents are sensitive and may have legal implications; interceptions or tampering are severe.

Recommended Controls:

Use signed webhooks with signature verification
Store e-signature artifacts in encrypted object storage and maintain chain-of-custody metadata
Implement workflow guards for signature requests and require multi-party approval for signature operations
Limit sharing of signed documents; watermark exports and log downloads

CAT Tool Integrations (Optional translation tools)

Security Requirements:

Use OAuth2 or API keys scoped to required assets; enforce least-privilege
Protect translation assets and metadata; avoid automatic export of PII to external CAT tools unless contractually permitted
Ensure secure transfer and storage during CAT workflows

Risk Assessment: Medium - Translation assets may contain sensitive PII or government content; third-party processing risk.

Recommended Controls:

Contractual controls: data handling, retention, and non-disclosure with vendor
Use encrypted channels and transient export of content; prefer in-house processing or vetted vendors
Apply DLP scans before sending content to CAT tools; redact or tokenize PII where possible

Malware Scanning / Sandboxing Service

Security Requirements:

Use API with authenticated, auditable requests
Ensure file uploads to sandbox preserve privacy and use isolated environments
Keep signature/heuristic engines updated and support callback/webhook verification

Risk Assessment: Medium - Essential for preventing malware, but sandbox false negatives or leaks could cause exposure.

Recommended Controls:

Integrate scanning as mandatory pre-publication step with quarantine workflows
Send only necessary file bytes or encrypted containers; maintain chain-of-custody metadata
Monitor scan performance and maintain fallback manual review for high-risk files

Video Conferencing / Virtual Meeting Providers (e.g., Teams, Zoom)

Security Requirements:

Use meet invite creation via calendar API with unique meeting links and restricted access options
Enforce meeting lobby, passcodes, or tenant federation policies as applicable
Avoid embedding sensitive document content in meeting invites

Risk Assessment: Medium - Meeting links and invites can leak scheduling and PII; misconfigured meetings can allow disruption or eavesdropping.

Recommended Controls:

Create meetings via API with minimum privileges and enforce attendee lists
Rotate meeting join tokens and avoid public-facing meeting links for restricted bookings
Provide guidance and defaults for secure meeting configuration (waiting rooms, password protection)

Webhooks and Incoming Callbacks

Security Requirements:

Require signed webhook payloads (HMAC) and timestamp/nonce validation
Use TLS with certificate validation and IP allowlisting for provider endpoints if available
Authenticate with mutual TLS for high-risk callbacks

Risk Assessment: High - Unsigned or unauthenticated callbacks can be forged to manipulate workflows or spoof events.

Recommended Controls:

Verify signatures and timestamps; reject replayed events
Run webhook payloads through validation and schema checks
Log and alert on unexpected webhook patterns and replays

9.5. Cross-Cutting Controls and How Elements Work Together

Centralized Identity & Authorization: All components use a single authoritative Identity Service and Authorization Policy Engine (RBAC/ABAC) to ensure consistent enforcement. API Gateway enforces authentication and forwards context to services which then perform fine-grained authorization checks.
Data Flow & Minimization: Sensitive data stays encrypted at rest and in transit, and long-term analytics stores receive aggregated or tokenized datasets only. The assignment engine operates on references and minimized attributes; sensitive fields are decrypted only in controlled service contexts.
Defense-in-Depth: CDN/WAF at edge, API Gateway for request validation and rate limiting, microservice boundaries and service mesh for mTLS, database encryption, and immutable audit logs for tamper evidence.
Integration Gateway: All external integrations flow through a hardened integration gateway/proxy that centralizes credential management, rate limiting, payload sanitization, and observability, reducing direct exposure of internal services.
Observability & IR: Central SIEM aggregates logs, alerting, and forensic search. Ensure runbooks and regular tabletop exercises for incidents (data breach, malware detection, credential compromise). All log sources produce cryptographically-protected audit records in immutable storage.
Tenant Isolation: Tenant IDs propagated through entire request path; access control enforced at API, service, and storage layers. Consider per-tenant DB schemas or strong row-level policies for stricter separation, supplemented by network segmentation for agency-specific deployments where required.
Change & Configuration Management: Treat workflow configurations and role mappings as code, review via PRs, and require approvals; changes are audited and subject to rollback.
Secure SDLC: Threat modeling, SAST/DAST, dependency scanning, and release gating for critical components. Pen testing and multi-tenant penetration tests prior to production.

9.6. Operational & Governance Recommendations

Implement a risk-based classification and routinely review retention/handling policies with agency stakeholders.
Maintain supplier security assessments, contractual SLAs, and the right to audit for all third-party providers that process Restricted or Confidential data.
Enforce periodic access reviews for privileged roles and service accounts.
Provide agency-level admin dashboards to manage tenant-specific policies, export controls, and legal holds.
Establish incident response lines with agency contacts and require notification SLAs.
Run regular tabletop exercises covering malware in uploaded documents, credential compromise, and cross-tenant data access scenarios.

9.7. Summary of Recommended Architectural Patterns (quick reference)

API Gateway (OAuth2/OIDC) + WAF + CDN
Identity Service with SSO (SAML/OIDC), MFA, and SCIM provisioning
Central Authorization Policy Engine (OPA or equivalent)
Microservices with service mesh for mTLS and observability
Encrypted RDBMS (TDE) + column/field-level encryption
Object Storage with SSE-KMS and short-lived signed URLs
Immutable log store (WORM) and SIEM integration
Integration Gateway for third-party connectors
Malware scanning + sandbox pipeline for file ingestion
Workflow orchestration (Temporal/Step Functions) for durable and auditable state transitions

This architecture and applied controls implement Zero Trust and defense-in-depth principles to protect sensitive government data, provide tenant separation and auditability, and enable secure integrations required by the interpreter & translator service management application.

10. Implementation Roadmap

This section provides a prioritized, phased approach for implementing the security controls identified throughout this analysis. The roadmap organizes security measures into logical phases based on risk, dependencies, and resource availability, ensuring critical security gaps are addressed first while building a foundation for comprehensive security coverage.

10.1. Prioritization Framework

Prioritization is critical for effective security implementation because it ensures that the most critical vulnerabilities and compliance requirements are addressed first, minimizing potential risks and protecting sensitive data. By organizing security controls into a phased implementation plan, organizations can allocate resources efficiently, address dependencies, and achieve compliance in a timely manner. The following criteria were used to prioritize the implementation of security controls:

Prioritization Criteria:

Risk Level: Controls addressing critical and high-risk threats (identified through threat modeling) are prioritized first
Compliance Deadlines: Regulatory requirements and compliance deadlines influence immediate priority
Technical Complexity: Controls requiring foundational infrastructure are implemented early to enable subsequent controls
Dependencies: Controls that other security measures depend upon are prioritized accordingly
Resource Availability: Implementation considers the availability of skilled personnel, tools, and budget
Business Impact: Controls protecting business-critical functions and data receive higher priority

These criteria work together to create a logical implementation sequence that balances security needs with practical constraints, ensuring that critical vulnerabilities are addressed promptly while maintaining operational efficiency.

10.2. Phased Implementation Plan

Phase: IMMEDIATE

Timeline: 0-1 months

Rationale: Address critical vulnerabilities and compliance blockers to mitigate high-risk threats and ensure regulatory adherence.

Controls to Implement:

Enforce Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for all users, especially administrative and agency accounts
Implement basic encryption for sensitive data in transit and at rest
Secure SSO configurations with strict audience, issuer, and certificate validation
Conduct an initial Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for compliance with GDPR

Dependencies:

None

Phase: SHORT-TERM

Timeline: 1-3 months

Rationale: Enhance access control and security monitoring capabilities to build on immediate controls and improve overall security posture.

Controls to Implement:

Enhance user authentication through comprehensive multi-factor authentication
Deploy role-based access controls across the admin dashboard
Implement comprehensive logging and monitoring for all administrative actions
Strengthen API security with input validation and HTTPS protocols
Begin encryption for all sensitive data at rest

Dependencies:

Completion of TLS Implementation
Completion of multi-factor authentication

Phase: MEDIUM-TERM

Timeline: 3-6 months

Rationale: Focus on advanced threat detection and testing to identify and mitigate emerging risks, while ensuring third-party integrations are secure.

Controls to Implement:

Deploy advanced threat detection systems
Automate security testing (SAST/DAST) and vulnerability scanning
Conduct third-party security audits for integrations (e.g., DocuSign, calendar services)
Enhance data protection measures, including encryption key management and DLP

Dependencies:

Completion of comprehensive logging and monitoring
Completion of API security enhancements

Phase: LONG-TERM

Timeline: 6-12 months

Rationale: Implement strategic security initiatives and continuous improvement practices to mature the security program.

Controls to Implement:

Develop and implement a security maturity model for continuous improvement
Deploy advanced AI/ML security controls for anomaly detection
Conduct comprehensive penetration testing for ongoing security validation
Launch security awareness and training programs for staff

Dependencies:

Completion of threat detection systems
Completion of security testing automation

Phase: ONGOING

Timeline: Continuous

Rationale: Maintain continuous security operations to ensure ongoing protection and compliance.

Controls to Implement:

Continuous security monitoring and incident response readiness
Regular patch management and vulnerability remediation
Conduct periodic compliance audits and risk assessments
Maintain up-to-date security policies and procedures

Dependencies:

None

10.3. Resource Requirements

Skills required for successful implementation include Security Engineers for technical control implementation, Security Architects for designing secure architectures, Web Developers for integrating security into application development, and Compliance Specialists for regulatory adherence. Recommended tools include SIEM solutions for centralized logging and monitoring, vulnerability scanners for identifying and mitigating security gaps, encryption libraries for data protection, and API management tools for securing interfaces. Estimated time effort is approximately 3-6 months for initial phases, with ongoing efforts extending resources as per system complexity and requirements.

11. Verification and Testing Strategy

11.1. Testing Approach

Integrate security testing throughout the software development lifecycle (SDLC) with an emphasis on continuous security practices. Balance automated scanning with manual evaluations to prioritize high-risk areas based on business impact, adhering to shift-left security principles by incorporating security testing earlier and continuously. This approach ensures that vulnerabilities are identified and remediated promptly, thereby reducing overall risk and enhancing compliance with regulatory requirements.

11.2. Testing Methods

Method	Frequency	Tools
STATIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (SAST)	Every commit/build	SonarQube, Semgrep, Checkmarx, CodeQL
DYNAMIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (DAST)	Nightly/weekly	OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite, Acunetix
DEPENDENCY SCANNING	Every build	Snyk, Dependabot, OWASP Dependency-Check
SECRETS SCANNING	Every commit	TruffleHog, GitLeaks, GitHub Secret Scanning
CONTAINER/INFRASTRUCTURE SCANNING	Every deployment	Trivy, Clair, Prowler, ScoutSuite
PENETRATION TESTING	Quarterly or before major releases	Custom scripts, Metasploit, Burp Suite Pro
SECURITY CODE REVIEW	For critical features	GitHub/GitLab code review, Security checklists
COMPLIANCE SCANNING	Continuous	AWS Config, Azure Policy, Cloud Custodian

11.3. Compliance Verification

Multi-standard compliance (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) will be verified through automated tools and manual checks against regulatory requirements such as GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS. Audit preparation will involve ensuring documentation and evidence collection for external audits, specifically focusing on the controls implemented for each regulation. Recommendations will include engaging third-party auditors for comprehensive evaluations, ensuring that all security controls meet the necessary compliance standards.

11.4. Continuous Monitoring

Implement Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) for real-time monitoring, supported by Intrusion Detection/Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS) to identify and mitigate threats. All logs will be aggregated and analyzed for anomalies, with integration into incident response processes to ensure prompt action against security events. Continuous monitoring will help maintain awareness of security posture and facilitate rapid response to any detected incidents.

11.5. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Mean time to detect (MTTD) security issues
Mean time to remediate (MTTR) vulnerabilities
Percentage of critical vulnerabilities patched within SLA
Security test coverage percentage
False positive rate in automated scanning
Compliance audit pass rate

12. Validation Report

This section presents a comprehensive validation of the security requirements generated throughout this analysis. The validation evaluates the requirements against five key dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. This assessment ensures that the security requirements are comprehensive, technically sound, and actionable for implementation teams.

12.1. Overall Assessment

The overall validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five critical dimensions. Each dimension is scored from 0.0 to 1.0, with 1.0 representing excellent coverage and 0.0 indicating significant gaps.

Overall Score: 0.88/1.0

Validation Status: ✅ PASSED

The security requirements have met the quality threshold (≥0.8) and are ready for implementation. The requirements demonstrate comprehensive coverage, technical accuracy, and alignment with business objectives.

The validation assesses:

Completeness: Are all identified security concerns adequately addressed?
Consistency: Do requirements align with each other without contradictions?
Correctness: Are controls appropriate for the identified risks and correctly applied?
Implementability: Are requirements specific, actionable, and feasible to implement?
Alignment: Do security requirements align with business requirements and objectives?

12.2. Dimension Scores

Dimension	Score	Status
Completeness	0.86	✅
Consistency	0.95	✅
Correctness	0.90	✅
Implementability	0.78	⚠️
Alignment	0.92	✅

Score Interpretation: - ✅ 0.8-1.0: Excellent - ⚠️ 0.7-0.79: Acceptable (minor improvements needed) - ❌ <0.7: Needs significant improvement

12.3. Detailed Feedback

Summary: The provided security requirements and mapping to standards (OWASP, NIST, ISO27001) cover most critical security domains for a multi-tenant government-facing interpreter/translator booking platform. Strengths include robust coverage of authentication/MFA, RBAC/tenant isolation, file handling/malware scanning, audit logging, encryption, third-party integration controls, and initial AI/ML-specific controls. The current set is consistent and aligns well with the business needs, but several gaps and areas of ambiguity remain that will hinder precise implementation and verification unless addressed.

High-priority actionable improvements (implement before development or earliest sprint): 1) Session & Authentication specifics: add explicit requirements for session lifetime, refresh-token rotation and revocation, brute-force protections (e.g., rate-limit attempts, account lockout after N failed attempts), single logout (SSO SLO), and password policy (or delegated to IdP). Specify accepted token formats/algorithms (e.g., JWT RS256) and secure cookie attributes (HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite). 2) Identity provisioning and lifecycle: require SCIM or automated provisioning/deprovisioning for SSO integrations, periodic account access reviews, emergency break-glass access controls with logged approvals, and vetting proof artifacts retention rules. 3) Secrets & key management: specify use of managed KMS/HSM for keys, key rotation schedule (e.g., 90 days for symmetric; annual for master keys), separation of encryption keys per tenant for data residency isolation, and rules for credential storage (no secrets in code or repo). 4) API & integration security: add explicit API security controls — API gateway, rate-limiting, mutual TLS or signed webhooks, OAuth scope-minimization, token revocation endpoint tests, and webhook signature verification. Define least-privilege scopes per integration (Teams/Outlook, DocuSign, CAT tools). 5) Data residency, classification and retention details: map data classes to retention periods and storage locations (e.g., audit logs WORM for X years), specify per-country residency requirements and enforcement (region-specific KMS, geo-fencing), and document retention/deletion workflows (pseudonymization before deletion when required). 6) Logging & monitoring operationalization: specify SIEM ingestion format, log retention periods per regulation (e.g., 7 years for government finance), log access controls, integrity checks (e.g., HMAC or signed log entries), alerting thresholds, and responsibilities for log review cadence. 7) Secure file previewing and rendering: require sandboxed preview rendering (no direct execution of uploaded content), HTML sanitization for document previews, content-disposition handling, and limits for file types/sizes. Define quarantine/workflow for suspicious files and proof-of-concept EICAR tests frequency. 8) Vulnerability and supply-chain controls: require SAST/DAST in CI/CD, software composition analysis (SCA) for dependencies, regular dependency patching cadence, signed builds, and contractual security requirements + security assessment rights for third-party suppliers (DocuSign, CAT vendors). Include pen-test cadence (annual + major release) and bug-bounty consideration. 9) Privacy & regulatory specifics: add requirement for DPIA before production of high-risk features, consent capture and audit trail for GDPR/CCPA, data subject request handling SLA (e.g., respond within 30 days), BAA requirement for HIPAA-covered data processors, and PCI scope minimization (do not store PAN; use hosted/redirect payment flows). Document proof/artefacts required for audits. 10) AI/ML governance and robustness: expand ML controls into a full model governance policy: training data lineage and access controls, privacy-preserving techniques (e.g., differential privacy or PII filtering), fairness/bias testing and thresholds, adversarial robustness testing, model explainability logs for each automated assignment, retraining/change management with validation and rollback procedures, continuous monitoring for drift and anomalous behavior, and role-based access to model artifacts. Clarify whether assignment engine uses LLMs or classical ML and adapt controls accordingly.

Medium-priority actionable clarifications (for next planning/acceptance criteria): - Granular RBAC/ABAC matrix: provide a role-permission matrix and examples of workspace/tenant cross-access scenarios for QA tests. Define separation-of-duty rules (who can approve payments or release deliverables). - Export/watermarking: require watermarking/tracking (user-id, timestamp) on exported PDFs/CSV that contain sensitive info; include revocation/audit trail for exports. - Backup and recovery: require encrypted backups, backup retention policy, restore test cadence, and RTO/RPO targets for critical services. - Availability & DoS: document SLA targets and DDoS protections, rate-limiting policies per endpoint (real-time channels, APIs). - Operational runbooks: incident response runbooks tailored to key scenarios (data breach, malware in uploads, model poisoning), and incident tabletop schedule.

Developer-actionable examples (concrete controls you can add to requirements): - Require MFA (TOTP or FIDO2) for all users; require MFA for privileged roles always. (Verifiable via account sample.) - Enforce access token TTL <= 1 hour, refresh token rotation with revocation, and maximum refresh token lifetime of 30 days. - Lock account after 5 failed attempts for 15 minutes; notify user and admin on lockout. - All uploaded files previewed in isolated container/sandbox; file previews disabled for quarantined files. - All logs are written to an append-only store and replicated to a separate immutable cloud bucket; cryptographic checksums performed daily. - SSO integrations require SCIM for user provisioning and OAuth2 authorization code flow with PKCE where applicable. - ML models: maintain metadata for training data, model checksum, last-train date, performance/fairness metrics; require manual sign-off for production model changes.

Verification advice for QA and auditors: - Create test suites: IDOR tests across tenants, role-permission matrix tests, SSO provisioning/deprovisioning tests, webhook signature verification tests, malware upload EICAR and sandboxing tests, export redaction tests, and ML adversarial input test cases. - Require evidence artifacts: DPIA, BAA/contract excerpts, key rotation logs, SIEM alerts, pen-test reports, model validation reports.

If you want, I can convert the above improvements into: (A) prioritized backlog items with acceptance criteria for developers and QA, (B) a checklist with test cases for each major control, or (C) a tightened, implementable security requirements document that replaces high-level language with concrete, testable requirements.

Appendix A: Original Requirements Document

Interpreter & Translator Service Management Application Requirements

We need to build a web application for managing interpreter and translator bookings, document translation workflows, and collaboration between government agencies and service providers.

Key Features:

1. User Management
   - User registration and login using email or SSO
   - Multiple roles: Admin, Coordinator, Interpreter, Translator, Reviewer, Agency User
   - User profiles with language pairs, certifications, and availability
   - Separate workspaces for agencies to manage their own requests

2. Task Management
   - Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings
   - Create translation jobs with document uploads
   - Assign interpreters/translators based on availability and language requirements
   - Track task progress through defined stages
   - Support attachments, comments, and activity logs for each task

3. Collaboration
   - Comment on tasks and mention other users using @mentions
   - Real-time updates on task changes
   - Activity feed showing recent team actions

4. File Management
   - Upload, preview, and download task-related files
   - Maintain file version history
   - File access restricted based on user roles

5. Notifications
   - Email notifications for new assignments and status updates
   - In-app notifications for mentions and approvals
   - Optional SMS alerts for urgent bookings
   - Daily summary email summarizing assigned tasks and activity

6. Reporting
   - Dashboards showing task statistics and productivity
   - Export reports as CSV or PDF
   - Agencies can access spending and performance reports

7. Integration
   - Integration with Outlook/Teams calendars for booking synchronization
   - Integration with email services for transactional notifications
   - Integration with DocuSign for electronic signatures
   - Optional integration with translation tools (CAT software)

8. System Requirements
   - Accessible via modern web browsers
   - Responsive UI for mobile and tablet devices
   - Follow WCAG accessibility guidelines
   - Support multiple languages

The application will handle sensitive government data, manage interpreter and translator assignments, process translation workflows, and maintain audit logs. It will integrate with third-party services like email, calendar, and video conferencing tools.

Appendix B: Glossary

Term	Definition
ASVS	Application Security Verification Standard (OWASP)
STRIDE	Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege
SAST	Static Application Security Testing
DAST	Dynamic Application Security Testing
MFA	Multi-Factor Authentication
RBAC	Role-Based Access Control
PII	Personally Identifiable Information
PHI	Protected Health Information
GDPR	General Data Protection Regulation
HIPAA	Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
PCI-DSS	Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard

Appendix C: Complete Threat List

This appendix contains the complete list of all identified threats with full descriptions and mitigation strategies. Threats are organized by risk level for easy reference.

Critical Risk Threats

THR-001 - User Management (Auth service / Identity Service / SSO)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Risk Level: Critical
Description: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak passwords, or exploiting SSO misconfigurations (SAML/OIDC replay or assertion manipulation) to register/log in as Admin, Coordinator, or Agency User.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce MFA for all administrative and agency accounts; require strong password policies and adaptive/auth risk-based authentication; implement secure SSO configurations with strict audience, issuer, cert validation and short assertion lifetimes; monitor and block credential stuffing; enforce account lockout and anomaly detection; rotate IdP trust keys on schedule.

THR-006 - Application Services (RBAC)

Category: Elevation of Privilege
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Risk Level: Critical
Description: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant boundaries or gain Admin privileges through insecure checks in APIs or direct object reference manipulation.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce server-side RBAC and ABAC checks for every API endpoint; implement per-tenant authorization checks and ownership verification; use centralized authorization service, deny-by-default policies, and regular authorization tests; log privileged operations and alert anomalous privilege changes.

THR-028 - Application Services (Session handling / SPA)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Risk Level: Critical
Description: Session cookie theft via XSS or insecure storage leads to account takeover; SPA storing tokens in localStorage increases risk of token theft by malicious scripts.
Mitigation Strategy: Avoid storing tokens in localStorage; use secure, HttpOnly cookies with SameSite protections; implement refresh tokens with rotation; set short lifetimes and revoke sessions on suspicious activity; harden against XSS.

High Risk Threats

THR-002 - Frontend Layer

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Client-side code or assets are tampered (e.g., compromised CDN or supply chain) delivering malicious JS to users leading to credential theft or session hijacking.
Mitigation Strategy: Use subresource integrity (SRI) where applicable; serve critical JS from trusted origins; enable CSP with strict directives; sign and verify static assets; enforce strong CDN security and origin access; monitor for integrity changes; implement CSP reporting and SCA for dependencies.

THR-003 - Edge & API Gateway

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Large-scale or targeted request floods or slow POST attacks overwhelm gateway or backend services, preventing booking creation or critical operations (availability impact for government workflows).
Mitigation Strategy: Implement WAF rate limiting, per-tenant quotas, IP reputation blocks, WAF bot mitigation, autoscaling, circuit breakers, backpressure on queues, and use DDoS protection services; implement graceful degradation for non-critical features.

THR-004 - Application Services (APIs)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL injection, NoSQL injection, or other injection attacks to alter booking data or corrupt workflows.
Mitigation Strategy: Use parameterized queries/ORMs, input validation and allowlists, stored procedures where appropriate; adopt strong ORM/DB access patterns; implement centralized input validation and WAF rules; perform code reviews and automated SAST/DAST; apply least-privilege DB accounts.

THR-005 - Frontend Layer / Application Services

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: High
Description: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams allowing escalation to session theft, data exfiltration, or unwanted actions with user context.
Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize and encode all user-supplied content server-side; use CSP and httpOnly, Secure cookies; implement Content Security Policy and input/output encoding libraries; validate file previews and remove embedded scripts in previews.

THR-007 - Data Storage (Relational DB / Object Storage)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in object storage or DB due to misconfigured permissions, leaked keys, or lack of encryption at rest.
Mitigation Strategy: Encrypt data at rest with customer-managed KMS keys; enforce object storage ACLs with per-tenant prefixes; implement fine-grained IAM roles and rotate credentials; enforce server-side access checks; conduct periodic permission audits and automated scanning for public buckets.

THR-008 - File Management (Uploads & Previews)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (man-in-the-middle or integrity manipulation), leading to distribution of manipulated legal/government documents.
Mitigation Strategy: Use TLS for uploads; validate and store file hashes; maintain version history with immutable storage for audit; sign or notarize important documents; implement upload integrity checks and secure temporary storage; restrict file replacement operations and require approvals for edits to final documents.

THR-010 - Integrations & External Services (DocuSign / Calendar / Email)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Compromise of third-party integration tokens or misconfigured OAuth leads to unauthorized calendar/event creation, e-signature forgeries, or sending emails/SMS as the system.
Mitigation Strategy: Use secure OAuth with short-lived tokens and refresh token rotation; store secrets in vault/KMS and restrict access; implement least privilege scopes; validate third-party callback endpoints; implement out-of-band verification for critical e-signature flows.

THR-012 - Real-time Notifications (WebSockets/Push)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel authorization is flawed or tokens are exposed, e.g., one tenant receives another agency’s task updates.
Mitigation Strategy: Authenticate and authorize every subscription with short-lived tokens; segregate channels by tenant ID; verify message recipients server-side before dispatch; encrypt payloads if needed; log subscribe/unsubscribe events.

THR-013 - Observability & Audit

Category: Repudiation
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alter or delete logs, preventing forensic investigation of who created/approved bookings or changed assignments.
Mitigation Strategy: Use immutable, append-only log store with WORM retention; replicate logs to a separate secure environment; sign logs; restrict access to log write/delete operations; enable alerts on log volume/retention changes; monitor integrity of audit store.

THR-015 - File Management (Malware scanning integration)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Malicious or weaponized documents bypass malware scanning via zero-day or scanner evasion and are distributed to interpreters/reviewers, resulting in endpoint compromise.
Mitigation Strategy: Use defense-in-depth: multiple scanning engines, sandbox file execution, strict preview sanitization, block risky file types, isolate downloads to secure viewer, maintain up-to-date scanning signatures and heuristics, and restrict who can download raw files.

THR-016 - Reporting & Exports (CSV/PDF)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Report export functionality exposes aggregated or raw PII if export permissions are weak or exports are cached/stored insecurely, leading to data leaks or bulk extraction via automation.
Mitigation Strategy: Restrict export permissions by role and tenancy; watermark/track exports; apply rate limits and require re-authentication for large exports; store exports in secure temporary storage with short TTL; review export content for PII minimization.

THR-018 - Edge & API Gateway

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Session fixation or session token theft via insecure cookies, predictable tokens, or lack of binding to client leads to unauthorized API calls using another user’s session.
Mitigation Strategy: Use secure, HttpOnly, SameSite=strict cookies or token binding; enforce TLS; rotate session tokens on privilege changes; limit session lifetime and implement device session management; bind tokens to IP/device fingerprints for high-risk operations.

THR-020 - Data Storage (KMS / Key Management)

Category: Elevation of Privilege
Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Compromise or misconfiguration of KMS permissions allows attackers to decrypt stored data, re-encrypt to hide activity, or create keys enabling persistent access to tenant data.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce strict IAM for KMS with limited principals; require multi-person approval for key deletion/rotation; audit KMS operations; use separate keys per tenant/classification; enable CMEK and key access logs to immutable store.

THR-021 - Integrations & External Services (CAT Tools / 3rd party translation vendors)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Optional integration with external CAT tools may send source documents or PII to third parties with weaker controls, resulting in data exfiltration or vendor misuse.
Mitigation Strategy: Perform vendor security assessments and contractual SLAs; use encryption in transit and at rest; require explicit agency consent per document; provide option to keep data in-house; anonymize or redact PII before sending where possible.

THR-024 - Edge & API Gateway

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: High
Description: Verbose error messages or stack traces returned by API gateway reveal internal architecture, DB queries, or sensitive identifiers aiding attackers in crafting targeted attacks.
Mitigation Strategy: Normalize and standardize error messages at edge; log detailed errors internally only; avoid leaking internal IDs or SQL errors to clients; implement structured error codes and document them for integrators.

THR-026 - Data Storage (Immutable Audit Store)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Insider or privileged account modifies or deletes audit records in mutable stores before they are replicated to the immutable store to cover actions like unauthorized assignments.
Mitigation Strategy: Write audit events directly to immutable store or append-only pipeline; segregate duties so no single actor can both perform and erase actions; alert on audit write failures or missing replication; use cryptographic log signing.

THR-030 - Integrations & External Services (Agency IdPs)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Low | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Compromised agency IdP or weak federation mapping allows an attacker from an agency tenant to escalate privileges or impersonate another agency’s user due to flawed tenant mapping or federated claims trust.
Mitigation Strategy: Validate federated claims and tenant mapping strictly; use audience and org ID checks; implement per-IdP tenant boundaries and allowlist vetted IdPs; require additional attestation for cross-tenant actions; implement SCIM and periodic identity reconciliation.

Medium Risk Threats

THR-009 - Background & Queue Services

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversions or fake jobs) causing queue starvation, high costs, delayed notifications and assignment failures.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce job rate limits and per-tenant quotas; validate job origins and authenticate enqueuers; require signed job payloads; apply resource limits and cost controls; monitor queue depth and anomalous job patterns.

THR-011 - Application Services (Assignment Engine)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Manipulating assignment logic or job payloads (e.g., by submitting crafted requests) to favor certain interpreters/translators or to bypass availability checks.
Mitigation Strategy: Validate assignment decisions server-side; sign/verify messages between microservices; create immutable assignment audit trail; implement input allowlists; rate-limit assignment-related endpoints; monitor for anomalies in assignment patterns.

THR-014 - Notifications (Email/SMS)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Sensitive booking or PII included in email/SMS notifications could be intercepted or sent to wrong recipient due to template injection or address manipulation.
Mitigation Strategy: Avoid including PII in notifications; use templating with strict parameterization; validate recipient addresses; support secure links requiring authentication for details; log notification deliveries and failures; apply TLS for email delivery (MTA-STS, DANE where possible).

THR-017 - Integrations & External Services (Calendar APIs)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Calendar synchronization leaks sensitive booking details into external calendars if scope over-provisioning occurs or if tokens are stolen, exposing schedule and possibly PII externally.
Mitigation Strategy: Use minimal OAuth scopes, display clear consent to agency; allow optional redaction of event details; rotate tokens; restrict calendar sync to approved domains; log calendar API calls and detect abnormal sync volumes.

THR-019 - Application Services (API endpoints)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) on state-changing endpoints (e.g., create/edit bookings) allows attackers to trigger actions in an authenticated user’s context.
Mitigation Strategy: Require anti-CSRF tokens for state-changing operations or use same-site cookies and validate Origin/Referer headers; require reauthentication for sensitive operations.

THR-022 - Background & Queue Services (File processing)

Category: Repudiation
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Background job failures or retries alter timestamps or state transitions without clear audit, allowing actors to deny actions (e.g., who approved a version) or hide malicious changes.
Mitigation Strategy: Create immutable event logs for job lifecycle; include job IDs and correlation IDs; idempotent processing and versioned state transitions; notify on unexpected job failures; preserve original timestamps where required.

THR-023 - Frontend Layer (Accessibility / Multi-language)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Low | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Localization/i18n resource injection or misuse causes disclosure of environment data or secrets if translation strings are loaded from untrusted sources or include interpolated sensitive values.
Mitigation Strategy: Ship localization resources as part of built artifacts; sanitize and review translation strings; avoid runtime interpolation of secrets; restrict language packs from third-party sources; test localized UI for security-sensitive content leakage.

THR-025 - Application Services (Activity feed / Comments)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Comment @mentions or activity feed allow injection of links to malicious sites or SSRF payloads in user-supplied content, enabling server-side or client-side exploitation.
Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize and canonicalize links; restrict allowed URL schemes; render external links with rel=“noopener noreferrer” and warning UI; block internal IP ranges from being referenced; scan comments for malicious patterns.

THR-027 - Integrations & External Services (Email/SMS Providers)

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Third-party email or SMS provider outage causes missed urgent booking alerts and SMS alerts, impacting mission-critical scheduling and response.
Mitigation Strategy: Implement multi-provider fallback for SMS/email; queue outgoing notifications and retry with backoff; provide alternative in-app critical alerts; monitor provider SLAs and implement heartbeat checks.

THR-029 - Data Storage (Analytics Store / Reporting)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Improper anonymization in analytics/reporting store exposes sensitive aggregates or individual PII through re-identification or by querying granular exports.
Mitigation Strategy: Apply differential privacy or strong anonymization; limit granularity for exported data; apply role-based access to analytics; monitor and limit ad-hoc query capabilities; sanitize report datasets.

Total Threats: 30

Appendix D: Complete Requirements Traceability Matrix

This appendix provides complete end-to-end traceability from requirements through threats to controls and verification.

Full Traceability Table

Req ID	Requirement	Category	Sensitivity	Threat IDs	Security Controls	Priority	Verification	Status
REQ-001	User registration and login with email, SSO, and m…	Authentication & Identity	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-005 +7	[OWASP] V2.1, [NIST] IA-2, [ISO27001] A.9.4.2	Critical	Review provisioning procedures, sampling of privileged accounts, and evidence of MFA enforcement and periodic access reviews., Inspect user account lifecycle, sample accounts for ANA/MFA enforcement, and verify logs show MFA usage for privileged accesses.	Pending
REQ-002	Role-based access control (Admin, Coordinator, Int…	Authorization & Access Control	High	THR-001, THR-006, THR-007 +5	[OWASP] V4.1, [NIST] AC-2, [NIST] AC-6	Critical	Permission audits, automated checks for unused privileges, and penetration testing for privilege escalation., Review account provisioning workflows, audit records for role changes, and test role deactivation scenarios.	Pending
REQ-003	User profiles capturing language pairs, certificat…	User Management / HR Data	Medium	THR-001, THR-002, THR-005 +7	[OWASP] V5.8, [NIST] PL-2, [ISO27001] A.8.2.3	Critical	Check system security requirements documentation and traceability to implemented controls protecting profile data., Data classification review, check encryption of sensitive fields, and access log sampling for profile attribute reads.	Pending
REQ-004	Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/authorizatio…	Multi-Tenancy / Data Segregation	High	None	[OWASP] V4.6, [NIST] SC-7, [NIST] AC-4	Critical	Review information flow policies, test attempts to access other tenants’ data, and examine enforcement logs., Network segmentation review, monitoring of inter-tenant communications, and boundary enforcement tests.	Pending
REQ-005	Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings wit…	Task & Scheduling Management	Medium	THR-013, THR-017, THR-019 +2	[OWASP] V4.3, [NIST] AU-2, [NIST] SI-10	Critical	Functional tests for authorization enforcement, IDOR tests, and business logic fuzzing., Input validation tests, fuzzing location/scheduling fields, and review of validation code.	Pending
REQ-006	Create translation jobs with document upload, assi…	Document & Workflow Management	High	THR-007, THR-008, THR-009 +6	[OWASP] V5.5, [NIST] MP-4, [NIST] SI-3	Critical	Review scanning integration logs, test with benign test files, and check quarantine policies., Review file upload pipeline, malware scan logs, access control configuration, and version history integrity.	Pending
REQ-007	Automated assignment engine to match interpreters/…	Matching & Scheduling Automation	Medium	THR-004, THR-009, THR-011 +2	[OWASP] V2.6, [NIST] PL-8, [NIST] SA-5	High	Architecture review, data flow analysis, and privacy impact assessment for the matching engine., Review algorithm logic, perform tests for edge cases, and audit decision logs for correctness and bias.	Pending
REQ-008	Task lifecycle management with configurable stages…	Workflow Management	Medium	THR-001, THR-004, THR-006 +5	[OWASP] V4.4, [NIST] AU-6, [NIST] CM-3	High	Review audit reports for lifecycle events and sample logs for anomaly detection., Inspect configuration change logs, code repository history, and approval records.	Pending
REQ-009	Attachments, comments, mentions (@mentions), and p…	Collaboration & Audit	High	THR-005, THR-013, THR-020 +1	[OWASP] V5.6, [NIST] AU-8, [ISO27001] A.12.4.3	High	Check log timestamps for consistency and NTP configuration; validate event sequencing in samples., Content injection tests, file upload security tests, and auditing of comment and activity logs.	Pending
REQ-010	Real-time updates (notifications/WS) and an activi…	Collaboration / Real-time Communication	Medium	THR-005, THR-012, THR-014 +5	[OWASP] V3.7, [NIST] SC-8, [NIST] SC-5	High	Review WebSocket/TLS configs, test message tampering/replay scenarios, and verify authentication enforcement on connections., Load and DDoS simulation tests and monitoring of real-time channel availability.	Pending
REQ-011	File management: upload, preview, download, scanni…	File & Content Management	High	THR-001, THR-004, THR-005 +4	[OWASP] V5.5, [NIST] SI-3, [ISO27001] A.12.2.1	Critical	Check malware scanning logs and sandboxing outcomes; periodic testing with EICAR/test samples., Review file handling pipeline, test upload of known-malicious test files, and verify version history integrity.	Pending
REQ-012	Role- and workspace-based file and task access con…	Access Control & Data Governance	High	THR-004, THR-005, THR-006 +7	[OWASP] V4.1, [NIST] AC-3, [ISO27001] A.9.1.1	Critical	Access control testing across roles, attempt unauthorized file access across workspaces, and code review., Inspect authorization service logs, policy definitions, and run access matrix tests.	Pending
REQ-013	Email, in-app, and optional SMS notifications (ass…	Notifications & Communications	Medium	THR-009, THR-011, THR-012 +2	[OWASP] V3.8, [NIST] SC-13, [ISO27001] A.13.2.3	High	Network capture review to confirm TLS usage and inspection of outbound message payloads., Inspect mail system configs, test header authentication, and review notification content for data leakage.	Pending
REQ-014	Dashboards and reporting: task statistics, product…	Reporting & Analytics	Medium	THR-004, THR-006, THR-009 +3	[OWASP] V5.8, [NIST] PL-2, [ISO27001] A.8.2.1	High	Review report generation code, test exports under different roles, and verify redaction/aggregation., Check classification labels on report datasets and verify enforcement of handling rules on exports.	Pending
REQ-015	Agency financial and performance reporting (spend,…	Finance & Performance Management	High	THR-001, THR-006, THR-012 +3	[OWASP] V5.8, [NIST] PL-2, [ISO27001] A.18.1.4	Critical	Legal/compliance review and evidence of controls meeting contractual requirements., Review requirements documentation and test financial reporting modules for access and integrity.	Pending
REQ-016	Integrations: Outlook/Teams calendar synchronizati…	Integration & Scheduling	Medium	THR-010, THR-013, THR-017 +4	[OWASP] V3.9, [NIST] SA-9, [ISO27001] A.13.2.3	High	Inspect OAuth flows, token storage, and scope usage; test token revocation and refresh., Review contracts and API usage logs; confirm monitoring and alerting for integration anomalies.	Pending
REQ-017	Integrations: transactional email service, DocuSig…	Integration & Third-Party Services	Medium	THR-001, THR-010, THR-014 +4	[OWASP] V3.9, [ISO27001] A.15.1.1, [NIST] SA-9	High	Review integration auth methods, secrets management, and test revocation scenarios., API gateway logs, monitoring dashboards, and incident records involving integrations.	Pending
REQ-018	Accessibility, responsive UI, and multi-language u…	Usability & Accessibility	Low	THR-001, THR-002, THR-005 +7	[OWASP] V1.3, [NIST] SA-11, [ISO27001] A.18.1.1	Medium	Secure SDLC artifacts showing localization/security tests and results., Compliance checklist and evidence of adherence to accessibility standards.	Pending
REQ-019	Audit logging, immutable activity records, and con…	Logging & Compliance	High	THR-004, THR-005, THR-006 +7	[OWASP] V10.1, [NIST] AU-2, [NIST] AU-9	Critical	Inspect log storage settings, retention configurations, and tamper-evidence mechanisms., Event catalog review and spot-checks of generated audit records.	Pending
REQ-020	Security controls including encryption in transit …	Security & Risk Management	High	THR-001, THR-004, THR-005 +7	[OWASP] V5.1, [NIST] SI-3, [NIST] IR-4 +1	Critical	Vulnerability scan reports, patch records, and incident management metrics., IR plan documentation, tabletop exercise evidence, and post-incident reviews.	Pending

Total Requirements Tracked: 20

Detailed Requirement Mappings

The following section provides detailed traceability for each requirement:

REQ-001: User registration and login with email, SSO, and multi-factor authentication

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas…
THR-002: Client-side code or assets are tampered (e.g., compromised CDN or supply chain) …
THR-005: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a…
THR-006: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo…
THR-012: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V2.1: [OWASP] Verify that authentication requirements for account creation and login use secur…
[NIST] IA-2: [NIST] Organizational users shall be uniquely identified and authenticated. Supports mu…
[ISO27001] A.9.4.2: [ISO27001] The allocation and use of privileged access rights shall be restricted and contr…

Verification: Review provisioning procedures, sampling of privileged accounts, and evidence of MFA enforcement and periodic access reviews., Inspect user account lifecycle, sample accounts for ANA/MFA enforcement, and verify logs show MFA usage for privileged accesses., Review authentication design, inspect MFA and SSO configuration, and perform authentication flow tests including replay/resilience tests.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-002: Role-based access control (Admin, Coordinator, Interpreter, Translator, Reviewer, Agency User)

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas…
THR-006: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo…
THR-007: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in …
THR-012: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut…
THR-020: Compromise or misconfiguration of KMS permissions allows attackers to decrypt st…
…and 3 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V4.1: [OWASP] Verify role-based access control is enforced server-side and follows the princip…
[NIST] AC-2: [NIST] The organization manages information system accounts, establishing, activating, …
[NIST] AC-6: [NIST] The organization employs the principle of least privilege, ensuring users have t…

Verification: Permission audits, automated checks for unused privileges, and penetration testing for privilege escalation., Review account provisioning workflows, audit records for role changes, and test role deactivation scenarios., Code and configuration review of authorization checks, role-permission matrix review, and tests attempting privilege escalation.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-003: User profiles capturing language pairs, certifications, availability, and vetting status

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas…
THR-002: Client-side code or assets are tampered (e.g., compromised CDN or supply chain) …
THR-005: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a…
THR-006: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo…
THR-007: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in …
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V5.8: [OWASP] Verify that personal data stored in user profiles is minimized, protected at res…
[NIST] PL-2: [NIST] The organization determines and documents the security and privacy requirements …
[ISO27001] A.8.2.3: [ISO27001] Information should be classified according to its value, sensitivity, and critic…

Verification: Check system security requirements documentation and traceability to implemented controls protecting profile data., Data classification review, check encryption of sensitive fields, and access log sampling for profile attribute reads., Review classification policy and evidence that profile fields are handled per classification (encryption, access controls).

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-004: Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/authorization separation

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V4.6: [OWASP] Verify tenant isolation and authorization boundaries in multi-tenant application…
[NIST] SC-7: [NIST] The information system monitors and controls communications at external and inte…
[NIST] AC-4: [NIST] The information system enforces approved authorizations for controlling the flow…

Verification: Review information flow policies, test attempts to access other tenants’ data, and examine enforcement logs., Network segmentation review, monitoring of inter-tenant communications, and boundary enforcement tests., Multi-tenant penetration tests, data access reviews ensuring tenant ID enforcement, and code review of authorization logic.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-005: Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings with scheduling and location details

Related Threats:

THR-013: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alt…
THR-017: Calendar synchronization leaks sensitive booking details into external calendars…
THR-019: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) on state-changing endpoints (e.g., create/edit…
THR-026: Insider or privileged account modifies or deletes audit records in mutable store…
THR-027: Third-party email or SMS provider outage causes missed urgent booking alerts and…

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V4.3: [OWASP] Verify that business functions like creating, editing, and deleting resources en…
[NIST] AU-2: [NIST] The organization defines auditable events for the information system, including …
[NIST] SI-10: [NIST] The information system validates inputs to prevent malicious data that could aff…

Verification: Functional tests for authorization enforcement, IDOR tests, and business logic fuzzing., Input validation tests, fuzzing location/scheduling fields, and review of validation code., Review audit log configuration and sample booking event logs for completeness and integrity.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-006: Create translation jobs with document upload, assignment, review, and versioned deliverables

Related Threats:

THR-007: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in …
THR-008: Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (ma…
THR-009: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio…
THR-013: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alt…
THR-015: Malicious or weaponized documents bypass malware scanning via zero-day or scanne…
…and 4 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V5.5: [OWASP] Verify secure handling of file uploads, including virus scanning, storage with a…
[NIST] MP-4: [NIST] Protection of digital and non-digital media containing sensitive information, in…
[NIST] SI-3: [NIST] The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, whi…

Verification: Review scanning integration logs, test with benign test files, and check quarantine policies., Review file upload pipeline, malware scan logs, access control configuration, and version history integrity., Inspect storage encryption settings, access policies, and sample access records for document retrieval.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-007: Automated assignment engine to match interpreters/translators by language, availability, certificati…

Related Threats:

THR-004: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i…
THR-009: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio…
THR-011: Manipulating assignment logic or job payloads (e.g., by submitting crafted reque…
THR-013: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alt…
THR-026: Insider or privileged account modifies or deletes audit records in mutable store…

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V2.6: [OWASP] Verify business logic and automated decision-making enforce authorization, preve…
[NIST] PL-8: [NIST] The organization incorporates privacy and security requirements into the system …
[NIST] SA-5: [NIST] Security requirements for system components including custom algorithms should b…

Verification: Architecture review, data flow analysis, and privacy impact assessment for the matching engine., Review algorithm logic, perform tests for edge cases, and audit decision logs for correctness and bias., Requirement traceability review, code audits, and component security assessments.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-008: Task lifecycle management with configurable stages and progress tracking

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas…
THR-004: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i…
THR-006: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo…
THR-008: Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (ma…
THR-009: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio…
…and 3 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V4.4: [OWASP] Verify workflows enforce authorization at each stage, maintain integrity of stat…
[NIST] AU-6: [NIST] The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records for indic…
[NIST] CM-3: [NIST] The organization develops, documents, and maintains baseline configurations and …

Verification: Review audit reports for lifecycle events and sample logs for anomaly detection., Inspect configuration change logs, code repository history, and approval records., Workflow testing (attempting unauthorized transitions), code review of state machine, and log inspection.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-009: Attachments, comments, mentions (@mentions), and per-task activity logs

Related Threats:

THR-005: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a…
THR-013: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alt…
THR-020: Compromise or misconfiguration of KMS permissions allows attackers to decrypt st…
THR-025: Comment @mentions or activity feed allow injection of links to malicious sites o…

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V5.6: [OWASP] Verify handling of user-provided content including attachments and comments, ens…
[NIST] AU-8: [NIST] The information system time-stamps audit records to provide accurate sequencing …
[ISO27001] A.12.4.3: [ISO27001] Administrator and operator activities shall be logged and the logs protected to …

Verification: Check log timestamps for consistency and NTP configuration; validate event sequencing in samples., Content injection tests, file upload security tests, and auditing of comment and activity logs., Review logging policy, access controls on logs, and sample logs for completeness.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-010: Real-time updates (notifications/WS) and an activity feed showing recent team actions

Related Threats:

THR-005: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a…
THR-012: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut…
THR-014: Sensitive booking or PII included in email/SMS notifications could be intercepte…
THR-019: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) on state-changing endpoints (e.g., create/edit…
THR-020: Compromise or misconfiguration of KMS permissions allows attackers to decrypt st…
…and 3 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V3.7: [OWASP] Verify secure use of real-time communication channels (WebSockets, SSE) includin…
[NIST] SC-8: [NIST] The information system protects the confidentiality and integrity of transmitted…
[NIST] SC-5: [NIST] The information system protects against or limits the effects of denial-of-servi…

Verification: Review WebSocket/TLS configs, test message tampering/replay scenarios, and verify authentication enforcement on connections., Load and DDoS simulation tests and monitoring of real-time channel availability., Network captures to verify TLS usage and payload encryption; review transport-level configs.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-011: File management: upload, preview, download, scanning, and file version history

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas…
THR-004: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i…
THR-005: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a…
THR-008: Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (ma…
THR-009: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio…
…and 2 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V5.5: [OWASP] Verify secure handling of file uploads, including virus scanning, storage with a…
[NIST] SI-3: [NIST] The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, whi…
[ISO27001] A.12.2.1: [ISO27001] Controls shall be implemented to detect and protect against malware, including s…

Verification: Check malware scanning logs and sandboxing outcomes; periodic testing with EICAR/test samples., Review file handling pipeline, test upload of known-malicious test files, and verify version history integrity., Operational policy review, scanning tool configuration inspection, and test evidence.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-012: Role- and workspace-based file and task access controls

Related Threats:

THR-004: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i…
THR-005: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a…
THR-006: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo…
THR-007: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in …
THR-008: Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (ma…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V4.1: [OWASP] Verify role-based access control is enforced server-side and follows the princip…
[NIST] AC-3: [NIST] The information system enforces approved authorizations for logical access to in…
[ISO27001] A.9.1.1: [ISO27001] Access control policy shall be established based on business and information sec…

Verification: Access control testing across roles, attempt unauthorized file access across workspaces, and code review., Inspect authorization service logs, policy definitions, and run access matrix tests., Policy review and evidence of policy enforcement through access logs and audits.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-013: Email, in-app, and optional SMS notifications (assignments, status updates, mentions, approvals, dai…

Related Threats:

THR-009: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio…
THR-011: Manipulating assignment logic or job payloads (e.g., by submitting crafted reque…
THR-012: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut…
THR-014: Sensitive booking or PII included in email/SMS notifications could be intercepte…
THR-021: Optional integration with external CAT tools may send source documents or PII to…

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V3.8: [OWASP] Verify that outbound email/SMS notifications use secure channels, proper authent…
[NIST] SC-13: [NIST] The information system implements cryptographic mechanisms to protect the confid…
[ISO27001] A.13.2.3: [ISO27001] Information involved in electronic messaging shall be protected in accordance wi…

Verification: Network capture review to confirm TLS usage and inspection of outbound message payloads., Inspect mail system configs, test header authentication, and review notification content for data leakage., Policy and contract review, plus sampling message handling procedures.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-014: Dashboards and reporting: task statistics, productivity, exports (CSV/PDF)

Related Threats:

THR-004: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i…
THR-006: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo…
THR-009: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio…
THR-012: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut…
THR-016: Report export functionality exposes aggregated or raw PII if export permissions …
…and 1 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V5.8: [OWASP] Verify that reporting and export functionality enforces access control, minimize…
[NIST] PL-2: [NIST] The organization determines and documents security and privacy requirements for …
[ISO27001] A.8.2.1: [ISO27001] Information shall be classified and handling procedures established; reports and…

Verification: Review report generation code, test exports under different roles, and verify redaction/aggregation., Check classification labels on report datasets and verify enforcement of handling rules on exports., Traceability review from requirements to implementation and testing of export controls.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-015: Agency financial and performance reporting (spend, SLA metrics)

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas…
THR-006: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo…
THR-012: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut…
THR-016: Report export functionality exposes aggregated or raw PII if export permissions …
THR-029: Improper anonymization in analytics/reporting store exposes sensitive aggregates…
…and 1 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V5.8: [OWASP] Verify that sensitive financial and performance data is protected, access is res…
[NIST] PL-2: [NIST] The organization determines and documents security and privacy requirements for …
[ISO27001] A.18.1.4: [ISO27001] Ensure compliance with legal and contractual requirements related to processing …

Verification: Legal/compliance review and evidence of controls meeting contractual requirements., Review requirements documentation and test financial reporting modules for access and integrity., Access policy review for financial reports and verification of integrity controls on exported data.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-016: Integrations: Outlook/Teams calendar synchronization for bookings

Related Threats:

THR-010: Compromise of third-party integration tokens or misconfigured OAuth leads to una…
THR-013: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alt…
THR-017: Calendar synchronization leaks sensitive booking details into external calendars…
THR-019: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) on state-changing endpoints (e.g., create/edit…
THR-021: Optional integration with external CAT tools may send source documents or PII to…
…and 2 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V3.9: [OWASP] Verify integration with third-party APIs uses secure OAuth flows, least privileg…
[NIST] SA-9: [NIST] The organization monitors and controls external system connections and uses cont…
[ISO27001] A.13.2.3: [ISO27001] Formal transfer policies, procedures and controls shall be in place to protect t…

Verification: Inspect OAuth flows, token storage, and scope usage; test token revocation and refresh., Review contracts and API usage logs; confirm monitoring and alerting for integration anomalies., Data flow diagrams and checks that transfers use TLS and minimal data exchange.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-017: Integrations: transactional email service, DocuSign (e-signatures), optional CAT tool integrations

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas…
THR-010: Compromise of third-party integration tokens or misconfigured OAuth leads to una…
THR-014: Sensitive booking or PII included in email/SMS notifications could be intercepte…
THR-017: Calendar synchronization leaks sensitive booking details into external calendars…
THR-021: Optional integration with external CAT tools may send source documents or PII to…
…and 2 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V3.9: [OWASP] Verify integration with third-party APIs uses secure OAuth flows, least privileg…
[ISO27001] A.15.1.1: [ISO27001] Information security requirements for mitigating risks associated with supplier …
[NIST] SA-9: [NIST] The organization monitors and controls external system connections and uses cont…

Verification: Review integration auth methods, secrets management, and test revocation scenarios., API gateway logs, monitoring dashboards, and incident records involving integrations., Contract review for security clauses and evidence of supplier assessments.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-018: Accessibility, responsive UI, and multi-language user interface

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas…
THR-002: Client-side code or assets are tampered (e.g., compromised CDN or supply chain) …
THR-005: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a…
THR-006: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo…
THR-012: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V1.3: [OWASP] Verify secure design includes accessibility and localization considerations; ens…
[NIST] SA-11: [NIST] Developers should adhere to secure development practices that include validating…
[ISO27001] A.18.1.1: [ISO27001] Consider legal and regulatory requirements for accessibility and language suppor…

Verification: Secure SDLC artifacts showing localization/security tests and results., Compliance checklist and evidence of adherence to accessibility standards., Localization input tests, accessibility compliance testing, and review of localized encoding handling.

Priority: Medium | Status: Pending

REQ-019: Audit logging, immutable activity records, and configurable data retention

Related Threats:

THR-004: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i…
THR-005: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a…
THR-006: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo…
THR-007: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in …
THR-012: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V10.1: [OWASP] Verify that applications produce sufficient, tamper-evident audit logs for secur…
[NIST] AU-2: [NIST] The organization defines auditable events and the information system generates a…
[NIST] AU-9: [NIST] Audit records shall be protected against unauthorized access, modification, and …

Verification: Inspect log storage settings, retention configurations, and tamper-evidence mechanisms., Event catalog review and spot-checks of generated audit records., Access control review for logs, checksum verification, and comparison across replicas.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-020: Security controls including encryption in transit and at rest, malware scanning, data loss preventio…

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas…
THR-004: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i…
THR-005: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a…
THR-006: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo…
THR-007: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in …
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V5.1: [OWASP] Verify sensitive data is protected using strong cryptography in transit and at r…
[NIST] SI-3: [NIST] The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, whi…
[NIST] IR-4: [NIST] The organization tests incident response capabilities and maintains incident res…
[ISO27001] A.12.6.1: [ISO27001] Require a process to identify, assess and remedy technical vulnerabilities and t…

Verification: Vulnerability scan reports, patch records, and incident management metrics., IR plan documentation, tabletop exercise evidence, and post-incident reviews., Cryptography configuration reviews, key management audits, and DLP rule testing., Malware scan logs, update records, and sandbox analysis evidence.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

Appendix E: References

End of Report - Generated by Security Requirements Analysis System v2.0 Generated: 2025-11-20 10:16:02

--- title: "Security Requirements Analysis Report" subtitle: "Comprehensive Security Analysis with Interactive Dashboard" author: "Security Requirements System v2.0" date: "2025-11-20 10:16:02" format: html: page-layout: full toc: true toc-depth: 3 toc-location: left embed-resources: true code-fold: true code-tools: true fig-width: 8 fig-height: 5 fig-dpi: 300 number-sections: false smooth-scroll: true mermaid-format: svg execute: echo: false warning: false message: false freeze: auto jupyter: python3 --- *Generated: 2025-11-20 10:16:02* *Report Version: 2.0 - Comprehensive Security Analysis* --- ## 1. Executive Summary This section provides a high-level overview of the security requirements analysis, presenting key findings, validation results, and an interactive dashboard for stakeholders and decision-makers. The executive summary enables rapid comprehension of the security posture, critical risks, control coverage, and compliance status without requiring detailed technical knowledge. ### 1.1. Purpose and Scope **Purpose** This document presents a comprehensive security requirements analysis for the proposed application, systematically mapping high-level business requirements to specific, actionable security controls aligned with multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. The analysis provides a complete security requirements specification that guides secure system design, implementation, and verification. **Scope** This analysis encompasses all functional requirements provided, delivering comprehensive coverage across multiple security domains: - **Requirements Analysis**: Systematic decomposition and security-relevant extraction from business requirements - **Stakeholder Analysis**: Identification of stakeholders, trust boundaries, and security responsibilities - **Threat Modeling**: Systematic identification and assessment of security threats using STRIDE methodology - **Security Control Mapping**: Mapping requirements to multi-standard security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed implementation guidance - **Compliance Requirements**: Identification of regulatory and legal compliance obligations - **Architectural Security**: Security architecture recommendations and design patterns - **Implementation Planning**: Prioritized, phased implementation roadmap - **Verification Strategies**: Testing and validation approaches for security controls The analysis provides both strategic guidance for security planning and tactical details for implementation teams. ### 1.2. Key Findings This section summarizes the most critical results from the security requirements analysis, providing executives and stakeholders with immediate insight into the security posture and validation status. **Analysis Metrics** - **Validation Score**: 0.88/1.0 - **Validation Status**: ✅ Passed - **Analysis Iterations**: 1 - **Requirements Analyzed**: 20 **Application Summary** A secure, multi-tenant web application for government agencies to manage interpreter and translator bookings, document translation workflows, and collaboration with service providers; it handles scheduling, document uploads and versioning, role-based access for agency and provider workspaces, notifications and reporting, and integrates with calendars, email, e-signature and translation tools while maintaining auditability, accessibility, and compliance with government data protection requirements. The validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. A score of 0.8 or higher indicates that the requirements are ready for implementation, while scores below this threshold may require refinement before proceeding. ### 1.3. Security Overview Dashboard This interactive dashboard provides executive-level visualization of key security metrics and trends, enabling rapid assessment of the security posture through intuitive charts and data visualizations. The dashboard presents critical information across multiple dimensions: risk distribution, security control coverage, compliance status, implementation progress, and data quality metrics. For optimal viewing experience, render this document with Quarto to enable interactive chart functionality, allowing stakeholders to explore data dynamically and drill down into specific areas of interest. ::: {.panel-tabset} #### Risk ```{python} #| label: load-metrics #| echo: false #| warning: false import json import pandas as pd from pathlib import Path # Load dashboard data artifacts artifacts_path = Path("artifacts_20251120_101602") threats = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "threats.json") asvs = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "asvs_mapping.json") priorities = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "priorities.json") compliance = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "compliance.json") delivery = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "delivery.json") coverage = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "coverage.json") validation = json.loads((artifacts_path / "validation.json").read_text()) ``` ```{python} #| label: fig-risk-heatmap #| fig-cap: "Risk heat map showing threat distribution by likelihood and impact (1-5 scale)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px import plotly.graph_objects as go # Create risk heatmap heat = threats.groupby(["likelihood", "impact"]).size().reset_index(name="count") # Create a complete 5x5 grid import numpy as np l_range = range(1, 6) i_range = range(1, 6) grid_data = [] for l in l_range: for i in i_range: count = heat[(heat["likelihood"] == l) & (heat["impact"] == i)]["count"].sum() grid_data.append({"likelihood": l, "impact": i, "count": int(count)}) heat_df = pd.DataFrame(grid_data) pivot = heat_df.pivot(index="impact", columns="likelihood", values="count").fillna(0) fig_risk = go.Figure(data=go.Heatmap( z=pivot.values, x=[f"L{x}" for x in pivot.columns], y=[f"I{y}" for y in pivot.index], text=pivot.values, texttemplate="%{text:.0f}", textfont={"size": 12}, colorscale="YlOrRd", hoverongaps=False )) fig_risk.update_layout( title="Threat Risk Matrix (Likelihood × Impact)", xaxis_title="Likelihood →", yaxis_title="Impact →", width=800, height=400 ) fig_risk.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate risk heatmap: {e}") print("\nRisk Distribution (Static):") print(threats.groupby("risk_level").size()) ``` **Top 5 Highest Risks:** ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false top_risks = threats.nlargest(5, ["likelihood", "impact"]) for idx, risk_row in top_risks.iterrows(): risk_id = risk_row['id'] risk_level = risk_row['risk_level'] component = risk_row.get('component', 'Unknown Component') category = risk_row.get('category', 'N/A') likelihood = risk_row.get('likelihood', 'N/A') impact = risk_row.get('impact', 'N/A') description = risk_row['description'] print(f"**{risk_id}** ({risk_level}) - {component}") print(f"- **Category:** {category}") print(f"- **Likelihood:** {likelihood} | **Impact:** {impact}") print(f"- **Description:** {description}") print("") ``` #### Controls ```{python} #| label: fig-standard-distribution #| fig-cap: "Security control distribution by standard (OWASP, NIST, ISO 27001)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px # Group by standard if "standard" in asvs.columns: dist = asvs.groupby("standard").size().reset_index(name="controls") dist = dist.sort_values("controls", ascending=False) # Add percentage for better context total = dist["controls"].sum() dist["percentage"] = (dist["controls"] / total * 100).round(1) # Map standard codes to display names standard_names = { "OWASP": "OWASP ASVS", "NIST": "NIST SP 800-53", "ISO27001": "ISO 27001:2022" } dist["standard_name"] = dist["standard"].map(standard_names).fillna(dist["standard"]) fig_std = px.bar( dist, x="standard_name", y="controls", text=[f"{c}<br>({p}%)" for c, p in zip(dist["controls"], dist["percentage"])], title="Security Controls by Standard", labels={"standard_name": "Security Standard", "controls": "Control Count"}, color="controls", color_continuous_scale="Blues" ) fig_std.update_traces(textposition='outside') fig_std.update_layout(width=800, height=400, showlegend=False) fig_std.show() else: print("Standard distribution data not available.") except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate standard distribution chart: {e}") ``` ```{python} #| label: fig-asvs-distribution #| fig-cap: "OWASP ASVS control distribution by verification category (V1-V14)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px # Filter to OWASP controls only asvs_owasp = asvs[asvs["standard"] == "OWASP"] if "standard" in asvs.columns else asvs # Group by ASVS category dist = asvs_owasp.groupby("v_category").size().reset_index(name="controls") dist = dist.sort_values("v_category") # Add percentage for better context total = dist["controls"].sum() dist["percentage"] = (dist["controls"] / total * 100).round(1) if total > 0 else 0 fig_asvs = px.bar( dist, x="v_category", y="controls", text=[f"{c}<br>({p}%)" for c, p in zip(dist["controls"], dist["percentage"])], title="OWASP ASVS Controls by Verification Category", labels={"v_category": "ASVS Category", "controls": "Control Count"}, color="controls", color_continuous_scale="Blues" ) fig_asvs.update_traces(textposition='outside') fig_asvs.update_layout(width=800, height=400, showlegend=False) fig_asvs.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate ASVS chart: {e}") ``` ```{python} #| label: fig-priority-breakdown #| fig-cap: "Security control priority distribution (Critical/High/Medium/Low)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px # Priority breakdown with color mapping color_map = { "Critical": "#c62828", "High": "#f57c00", "Medium": "#fbc02d", "Low": "#388e3c" } # Sort by priority level priority_order = ["Critical", "High", "Medium", "Low"] priorities_sorted = priorities.set_index("level").reindex(priority_order).reset_index() fig_prio = px.bar( priorities_sorted, x="level", y="count", text="count", title="Control Priority Breakdown", labels={"level": "Priority Level", "count": "Number of Controls"}, color="level", color_discrete_map=color_map ) fig_prio.update_traces(textposition='outside') fig_prio.update_layout(width=800, height=400, showlegend=False) fig_prio.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate priority chart: {e}") ``` **Coverage Metrics:** ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false total_controls = len(asvs) total_reqs = len(coverage) req_coverage = (coverage["has_controls"].mean() * 100) if not coverage.empty else 0 verif_coverage = (coverage["tests"].gt(0).mean() * 100) if not coverage.empty else 0 # Calculate additional metrics avg_controls_per_req = (total_controls / total_reqs) if total_reqs > 0 else 0 critical_controls = len(asvs[asvs["priority"] == "Critical"]) if "priority" in asvs.columns else 0 # Calculate standard distribution if available if "standard" in asvs.columns: std_counts = asvs["standard"].value_counts() owasp_count = std_counts.get("OWASP", 0) nist_count = std_counts.get("NIST", 0) iso_count = std_counts.get("ISO27001", 0) print(f"- **Total Security Controls Mapped:** {total_controls}") print(f" - OWASP ASVS: {owasp_count} controls") print(f" - NIST SP 800-53: {nist_count} controls") print(f" - ISO 27001: {iso_count} controls") else: print(f"- **Total Security Controls Mapped:** {total_controls} (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001)") print(f"- **Requirements with Security Control Mapping:** {req_coverage:.1f}% ({coverage['has_controls'].sum()}/{total_reqs})") print(f"- **Average Controls per Requirement:** {avg_controls_per_req:.1f}") print(f"- **Critical Controls:** {critical_controls} ({critical_controls/total_controls*100:.1f}% of total)" if total_controls > 0 else "- **Critical Controls:** {critical_controls}") print(f"- **Requirements with Verification:** {verif_coverage:.1f}% ({coverage['tests'].gt(0).sum()}/{total_reqs})") print(f"- **Recommended ASVS Level:** L2 (Standard)") ``` #### Compliance ```{python} #| label: fig-compliance-rag #| fig-cap: "Compliance status across all applicable frameworks (Red-Amber-Green rating). Shows regulatory compliance (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.) and security standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px # Show all compliance frameworks (regulatory and security standards) comp_filtered = compliance # Compliance RAG status status_map = { "Compliant": "#2e7d32", "In Progress": "#f9a825", "Gap": "#c62828" } # Sort frameworks alphabetically comp_sorted = comp_filtered.sort_values("framework") fig_comp = px.bar( comp_sorted, x="framework", y=[1] * len(comp_sorted), # Equal height bars color="status", color_discrete_map=status_map, title="Compliance Status Across All Frameworks", labels={"framework": "Framework", "y": ""}, text="status", height=400 ) fig_comp.update_layout(width=800, height=400, showlegend=True, yaxis_visible=False, yaxis_showticklabels=False) fig_comp.update_traces(textposition='inside') fig_comp.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate compliance chart: {e}") print("\nCompliance Status (Static):") for _, row in compliance.iterrows(): print(f"- **{row['framework']}**: {row['status']}") ``` **Compliance Summary:** ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false for _, row in compliance.iterrows(): status_icon = "✅" if row["status"] == "Compliant" else "⚠️" if row["status"] == "In Progress" else "❌" print(f"- {status_icon} **{row['framework']}**: {row['status']} (Next Audit: {row['next_audit']})") ``` #### Delivery ```{python} #| label: fig-delivery-burndown #| fig-cap: "Projected implementation timeline by phase and week (based on priority-based planning)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px import plotly.graph_objects as go # Create burndown chart with planned vs projected completion fig_burn = go.Figure() for phase in delivery["phase"].unique(): phase_data = delivery[delivery["phase"] == phase] # Planned line fig_burn.add_trace(go.Scatter( x=phase_data["week"], y=phase_data["planned"], mode='lines', name=f"{phase} (Planned)", line=dict(dash='dash', color='gray'), showlegend=True )) # Projected completion line fig_burn.add_trace(go.Scatter( x=phase_data["week"], y=phase_data["completed"], mode='lines+markers', name=f"{phase} (Projected)", showlegend=True )) fig_burn.update_layout( title="Security Controls Implementation Timeline (Projected)", xaxis_title="Week", yaxis_title="Number of Controls", width=800, height=400, hovermode='x unified' ) fig_burn.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate delivery chart: {e}") ``` **Implementation Timeline (Projected):** ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false phase1 = delivery[delivery["phase"].str.contains("Phase 1")] phase2 = delivery[delivery["phase"].str.contains("Phase 2")] if not phase1.empty: p1_progress = (phase1["completed"].iloc[-1] / phase1["planned"].iloc[-1] * 100) if phase1["planned"].iloc[-1] > 0 else 0 print(f"- **Phase 1 (Critical/High):** {p1_progress:.0f}% projected completion (Weeks 1-8)") if not phase2.empty: p2_progress = (phase2["completed"].iloc[-1] / phase2["planned"].iloc[-1] * 100) if phase2["planned"].iloc[-1] > 0 else 0 print(f"- **Phase 2 (Medium):** {p2_progress:.0f}% projected completion (Weeks 9-16)") print(f"- **Phase 3 (Low/Ongoing):** Continuous improvement and monitoring") print(f"") print(f"*Note: Timeline is based on priority-based planning and assumes steady implementation progress.*") ``` #### Data Quality **Validation Metrics:** ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false val_score = validation.get("score", 0) val_passed = validation.get("passed", False) dims = validation.get("dims", {}) status_icon = "✅" if val_passed else "⚠️" if val_score >= 0.7 else "❌" print(f"") print(f"**Overall Validation Score:** {status_icon} {val_score:.2f}/1.0") print(f"") if dims: print("**Dimension Scores:**") print(f"") for dim, score in dims.items(): dim_icon = "✅" if score >= 0.8 else "⚠️" if score >= 0.7 else "❌" print(f"- {dim_icon} **{dim.capitalize()}:** {score:.2f}") else: print("*Dimension scores not available.*") ``` ```{python} #| label: fig-data-quality #| fig-cap: "Data quality and coverage metrics." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.graph_objects as go # Calculate quality metrics threats_linked_pct = (coverage["has_threat"].mean() * 100) if not coverage.empty else 0 # Calculate average controls per requirement avg_controls_per_req = (total_controls / total_reqs) if total_reqs > 0 else 0 # For the chart, we'll show percentage-based metrics and handle avg controls separately metrics = { "Requirements Mapped": req_coverage, "Threats Linked": threats_linked_pct, "Verification Coverage": verif_coverage, "Avg Controls/Req": avg_controls_per_req * 20, # Scale for visual comparison (multiply by 20 to fit chart scale) "Validation Score": val_score * 100 } # Create custom text labels (show actual values for avg controls, percentages for others) text_labels = [] for key, val in metrics.items(): if key == "Avg Controls/Req": text_labels.append(f"{avg_controls_per_req:.1f}") else: text_labels.append(f"{val:.1f}%") fig_quality = go.Figure(go.Bar( x=list(metrics.values()), y=list(metrics.keys()), orientation='h', text=text_labels, textposition='outside', marker=dict( color=list(metrics.values()), colorscale='RdYlGn', cmin=0, cmax=100 ) )) fig_quality.update_layout( title="Data Quality & Coverage Metrics", xaxis_title="Score / Percentage (%)", xaxis=dict(range=[0, 110]), width=800, height=400, showlegend=False ) fig_quality.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate quality chart: {e}") ``` ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false # Parser and data quality stats total_entries = len(coverage) with_threats = coverage["has_threat"].sum() with_controls = coverage["has_controls"].sum() with_tests = coverage["tests"].gt(0).sum() print(f"") print(f"**Traceability Matrix:**") print(f"") print(f"- Total Requirements: {total_entries}") print(f"- Linked to Threats: {with_threats} ({with_threats/max(total_entries,1)*100:.1f}%)") print(f"- Mapped to Security Controls: {with_controls} ({with_controls/max(total_entries,1)*100:.1f}%)") print(f"- With Verification: {with_tests} ({with_tests/max(total_entries,1)*100:.1f}%)") print(f"") print(f"**Data Quality:** {"✅ Excellent" if val_score >= 0.8 else "⚠️ Good" if val_score >= 0.7 else "❌ Needs Improvement"}") ``` ::: --- ## 2. Requirements Understanding This section presents a comprehensive analysis of the functional requirements, extracting security-relevant information and establishing the foundation for the security requirements specification. Understanding the functional requirements is essential for identifying security implications, data sensitivity, trust boundaries, and security-critical components. This analysis transforms business requirements into security-aware specifications that inform threat modeling, control selection, and compliance assessment. ### 2.1. High-Level Requirements Analysis The following high-level functional requirements have been identified and analyzed for security implications: 1. User registration and login with email, SSO, and multi-factor authentication 2. Role-based access control (Admin, Coordinator, Interpreter, Translator, Reviewer, Agency User) 3. User profiles capturing language pairs, certifications, availability, and vetting status 4. Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/authorization separation 5. Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings with scheduling and location details 6. Create translation jobs with document upload, assignment, review, and versioned deliverables 7. Automated assignment engine to match interpreters/translators by language, availability, certifications, and location 8. Task lifecycle management with configurable stages and progress tracking 9. Attachments, comments, mentions (@mentions), and per-task activity logs 10. Real-time updates (notifications/WS) and an activity feed showing recent team actions 11. File management: upload, preview, download, scanning, and file version history 12. Role- and workspace-based file and task access controls 13. Email, in-app, and optional SMS notifications (assignments, status updates, mentions, approvals, daily summaries) 14. Dashboards and reporting: task statistics, productivity, exports (CSV/PDF) 15. Agency financial and performance reporting (spend, SLA metrics) 16. Integrations: Outlook/Teams calendar synchronization for bookings 17. Integrations: transactional email service, DocuSign (e-signatures), optional CAT tool integrations 18. Accessibility, responsive UI, and multi-language user interface 19. Audit logging, immutable activity records, and configurable data retention 20. Security, encryption, malware scanning, data loss prevention, and incident response controls ### 2.2. Detailed Requirements Breakdown | Req ID | Requirement | Business Category | Security Sensitivity | Data Classification | |--------|-------------|-------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | REQ-001 | User registration and login with email, SSO, and m... | Authentication & Identity | High | Confidential | | REQ-002 | Role-based access control (Admin, Coordinator, Int... | Authorization & Access Control | High | Confidential | | REQ-003 | User profiles capturing language pairs, certificat... | User Management / HR Data | Medium | Confidential | | REQ-004 | Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/authorizatio... | Multi-Tenancy / Data Segregation | High | Restricted | | REQ-005 | Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings wit... | Task & Scheduling Management | Medium | Confidential | | REQ-006 | Create translation jobs with document upload, assi... | Document & Workflow Management | High | Restricted | | REQ-007 | Automated assignment engine to match interpreters/... | Matching & Scheduling Automation | Medium | Confidential | | REQ-008 | Task lifecycle management with configurable stages... | Workflow Management | Medium | Confidential | | REQ-009 | Attachments, comments, mentions (@mentions), and p... | Collaboration & Audit | High | Restricted | | REQ-010 | Real-time updates (notifications/WS) and an activi... | Collaboration / Real-time Communication | Medium | Internal | | REQ-011 | File management: upload, preview, download, scanni... | File & Content Management | High | Restricted | | REQ-012 | Role- and workspace-based file and task access con... | Access Control & Data Governance | High | Restricted | | REQ-013 | Email, in-app, and optional SMS notifications (ass... | Notifications & Communications | Medium | Confidential | | REQ-014 | Dashboards and reporting: task statistics, product... | Reporting & Analytics | Medium | Confidential | | REQ-015 | Agency financial and performance reporting (spend,... | Finance & Performance Management | High | Restricted | | REQ-016 | Integrations: Outlook/Teams calendar synchronizati... | Integration & Scheduling | Medium | Confidential | | REQ-017 | Integrations: transactional email service, DocuSig... | Integration & Third-Party Services | Medium | Confidential | | REQ-018 | Accessibility, responsive UI, and multi-language u... | Usability & Accessibility | Low | Public | | REQ-019 | Audit logging, immutable activity records, and con... | Logging & Compliance | High | Restricted | | REQ-020 | Security controls including encryption in transit ... | Security & Risk Management | High | Restricted | ### 2.3. Security Context and Regulatory Obligations Applicable regulations and standards include national and regional data protection laws (e.g., GDPR for EU-resident personal data or equivalent local government data protection legislation), government information security frameworks (e.g., NIST SP 800-53 / NIST SP 800-171 for US government and contractors, or nationally adopted equivalents), ISO/IEC 27001 for information security management, and e-signature regulations (e.g., eIDAS in EU) where DocuSign is used. Accessibility obligations include WCAG and jurisdictional laws (e.g., Section 508 in the US). Additional obligations may include records retention and disclosure laws (e.g., FOIA), procurement/financial audit requirements for agency spend reporting, and supply-chain security and data processing agreements for third-party integrations. If any health or criminal justice information is handled, HIPAA or CJIS/National Criminal Information Center rules apply respectively. The exact regulatory controls depend on the agencies' jurisdictions and must be validated with legal/compliance owners. ### 2.4. Assumptions - System will be cloud-hosted (public or government cloud) and reachable via the public internet with secure controls. - Agencies will either provide SSO/IdP integration (SAML/OIDC) or accept a managed identity solution. - Users have modern browsers and network connectivity; mobile users will access via responsive web UI. - Third-party services (Outlook/Teams, email providers, DocuSign, CAT tools, SMS provider) provide stable APIs and support OAuth or equivalent secure integration. - No payment card processing is required within the application (no PCI-DSS scope) unless later added. - Interpreters/translators maintain and submit valid certifications and any required background checks externally; system stores evidence metadata and uploaded certifications. - Data residency and retention policies will be provided by agencies and may require region-specific hosting. - SMS delivery is via third-party provider and may expose limited metadata (phone numbers) to that provider. - Agencies require audit trails and will provide SLAs and retention/records management guidance. ### 2.5. Constraints - Must meet WCAG 2.1 AA (or agency-specified) accessibility standards and support multi-language UIs. - Must support modern web browsers and be responsive for tablet and mobile; no native mobile app in initial scope unless specified. - Tenant data isolation is required; architecture must support strong multi-tenancy or separate tenant instances per agency depending on data residency requirements. - Third-party integrations rely on vendor APIs and their SLAs; limited or degraded functionality is possible if APIs change or are unavailable. - Data residency and sovereign hosting constraints may mandate region-specific deployments and limit cross-region backups or processing. - Retention and immutable logging requirements may increase storage costs and require retention policy automation. - Uploads must be scanned for malware and stored securely; large file sizes and high throughput will impact storage and processing costs. - Legacy agency systems may not provide modern APIs; adapters or manual processes may be required for integration with legacy calendars or HR systems. - Operational constraints include providing incident response, patch management, regular security assessments, and possibly achieving agency-required certifications (e.g., FedRAMP, ISO 27001). - Optional SMS notifications are subject to telecom regulations and carrier deliverability constraints and may not be suitable for high-sensitivity content. --- ## 3. Stakeholder Analysis This section identifies and analyzes all stakeholders involved in or affected by the system, including users, administrators, external partners, and regulatory bodies. Stakeholder analysis establishes trust boundaries, defines security responsibilities, and identifies potential security concerns from different stakeholder perspectives. Understanding stakeholder relationships and trust boundaries is critical for designing appropriate access controls, authentication mechanisms, and data protection measures. ### 3.1. Identified Stakeholders and User Personas | Role | Privilege Level | Trust Level | Key Security Concerns | |---------------------|-----------------|------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Admin | Admin | Trusted | Privilege escalation by malicious insiders, unauthorized access to sensitive data, data integrity breaches. | | Coordinator | User | Trusted | Mismanagement of bookings, unauthorized changes to tasks, potential data leakage. | | Interpreter | User | Partially Trusted | Inaccurate task completion, exposure of sensitive data during assignments, compromised credentials. | | Translator | User | Partially Trusted | Mismanagement of translation tasks, potential exposure to sensitive documents, unauthorized access to client data. | | Reviewer | User | Partially Trusted | Incomplete reviews that lead to errors, unauthorized access to documents, potential for data loss. | | Agency User | User | Partially Trusted | Unintended access to other agencies' data, potential mismanagement of requests, exposure to compliance violations. | | Service Account | Service Account | Untrusted | Insecure API access, unauthorized data manipulation, lack of auditing and monitoring. | | Third-Party IdPs | Service Account | Untrusted | Insecure authentication processes, potential for identity spoofing, inadequate security controls. | | Email/SMS Provider | Service Account | Untrusted | Data interception during transmission, lack of encryption, unauthorized access to notification data. | | Calendar API | Service Account | Partially Trusted | Insecure data synchronization, potential data leaks during integration, unauthorized access to user calendars. | | DocuSign | Service Account | Partially Trusted | Insecure document handling, potential for unauthorized signature requests, data breaches. | | Malware Scanner | Service Account | Trusted | False negatives leading to data compromise, lack of timely updates, inadequate scanning coverage. | ### 3.2. Trust Model Trust boundaries are established at the user interface, backend server, and database levels. Security mechanisms enforcing boundaries include user authentication (email/password and SSO with MFA), role-based access control (RBAC) to ensure users can only access data and functionalities pertinent to their roles, and network segmentation to mitigate risks of unauthorized access. Admins have comprehensive access to manage system configurations and user privileges. Coordinators can manage bookings and tasks, while interpreters, translators, and reviewers have restricted access to only those tasks they are assigned to, ensuring that they cannot view or modify unrelated data. Agency users are limited to their workspace, ensuring tenant isolation. Service accounts have specific, limited permissions to perform automated tasks, and their activities are logged for auditing. The principle of least privilege is implemented by granting users the minimum access necessary to perform their responsibilities, thereby reducing the risk of data exposure and privilege escalation. --- ## 4. System Architecture Analysis ### 4.1. Architectural Overview A cloud-hosted, multi-tenant web application providing agency workspaces for managing interpreter and translator bookings, document translation workflows, and collaboration. Users access a responsive Web SPA via a CDN/WAF and API gateway; authentication is handled by an Identity Service supporting SSO and MFA. Core application services (task API, assignment engine, workflow orchestration, real-time notifications, background jobs) run behind the API gateway and interact with encrypted data stores: a primary relational DB for transactional data, object storage for scanned/versioned files, an immutable audit/log store, and an analytics store for reporting. Integrations connect to third-party IdPs, email/SMS providers, calendar APIs (Outlook/Teams), DocuSign, CAT tools, and malware scanning. Security controls (RBAC, tenant isolation, encryption, DLP, malware scanning, logging) and accessibility requirements are applied across layers to protect sensitive government data and meet compliance and audit requirements. ### 4.2. Architecture Diagram <style> svg { width: 100% !important; max-width: 100% !important; } .nodeLabel { white-space: normal !important; } </style> ```{mermaid} %%{init: {'theme':'dark'}}%% graph TB subgraph "Users & Devices" EU[Agency & Provider Users] end subgraph "Edge Layer" CDN[CDN & Web Application Firewall] API_GW[API Gateway & Rate Limiting] end subgraph "Frontend Layer" FE[Web App SPA & Admin UI] end subgraph "Application Services" Auth[Identity Service SSO/OIDC/SAML MFA] API[Core API Users/Tasks/RBAC] WS[Real-time WS & Notifications] Matcher[Assignment Engine & Workflow Orchestration] Jobs[Background Jobs & Scheduler] end subgraph "Data Layer" DB[Primary Relational DB - Encrypted] FS[Object Storage Files Scanned & Versioned] Audit[Immutable Audit & Log Store] Search[Analytics & Reporting Store] end subgraph "External Services" IdP[Agency IdP SAML/OIDC] EmailSvc[Email & SMS Provider] CalSvc[Outlook/Teams API] DocuSignSvc[DocuSign API] CATsvc[CAT Tool APIs] Malware[Malware Scanning Service] end EU --> CDN CDN --> FE FE --> API_GW API_GW --> Auth API_GW --> API API --> DB API --> FS API --> Audit API --> Search Auth --> IdP API --> Matcher Matcher --> Jobs Jobs --> FS Jobs --> EmailSvc WS --> API FE --> WS API_GW --> CalSvc API --> DocuSignSvc API --> CATsvc FS --> Malware EmailSvc --> EU CalSvc --> EU ``` ### 4.3. Component Breakdown | Component | Responsibility | Security Criticality | External Dependencies | |-----------|----------------|---------------------|----------------------| | Frontend Layer | Provide responsive SPA and admin UI for ... | Medium | CDN/WAF | | Edge & API Gateway | Receive and protect incoming traffic, pr... | High | CDN, WAF | | Application Services | Core business logic for user management,... | Critical | Agency IdPs (SAML/OIDC), Email/SMS Provider | | Data Storage | Store transactional data, multi-tenant m... | Critical | KMS/Key Management Service | | Background & Queue Services | Process asynchronous tasks: assignment m... | High | Message Queue/Job Scheduler, Malware Scanning Service | | Integrations & External Services | Connect securely to third-party provider... | High | Agency IdP SAML/OIDC, Email/SMS Provider | | Observability & Audit | Collect immutable audit logs, access log... | Critical | Immutable Log Store, SIEM/Monitoring Tools | ### 4.4. Data Flow Analysis Users interact via the Web SPA, which communicates through the CDN and API Gateway to backend services. Authentication is performed by the Identity Service (with IdP delegation); upon success the Core API handles CRUD operations for tasks, bookings, profiles and files. File uploads are routed to object storage and scanned by a malware service; metadata and task state are stored in the primary encrypted RDBMS. Background jobs handle assignment matching, scheduled notifications and integrations; audit events are written to an immutable log store and analytics snapshots are stored in the reporting store for dashboards and exports. Integrations push/pull calendar items, send email/SMS, request e-signatures, and optionally call CAT tools. Encryption is applied in transit (TLS) and at rest; RBAC and tenant isolation controls govern access at every step. ### 4.5. Attack Surface Analysis Primary attack surfaces include: (1) Public Web UI and API endpoints — risk: High (exposed to internet; mitigations: WAF, rate limiting, input validation, strong auth/MFA, RBAC); (2) Authentication/SSO integrations — risk: High (federated identity complexity; mitigations: strict SAML/OIDC config, MFA, PKI/claims validation); (3) File upload and processing pipeline — risk: High (malicious files, large volumes; mitigations: malware scanning, content-type validation, sandboxing, DLP, size limits); (4) Real-time WS and notification channels — risk: Medium (session hijack or unauthorized subscriptions; mitigations: token-based socket auth, strict access checks); (5) Third-party integrations (email/SMS/calendar/DocuSign/CAT) — risk: Medium (supply-chain/API abuse; mitigations: least-privilege credentials, monitoring, contractual security controls); (6) Background jobs and queues — risk: Medium (tampering with job payloads); mitigations: signed job payloads, access controls, logging; (7) Admin/management interfaces — risk: High (privileged operations); mitigations: dedicated admin roles, session timeout, audit trails, IP allowlists. Additional considerations: tenant isolation failures and misconfiguration can expose cross-agency data, so strict tenancy enforcement, CI/CD security checks, and regular penetration testing are required. Monitoring, SIEM alerts, and incident response play critical roles in detecting and containing attacks. --- ## 5. Threat Modeling This section presents a comprehensive threat analysis of the system architecture and functional requirements. Threat modeling systematically identifies potential security vulnerabilities and attack vectors, enabling proactive risk mitigation through the application of appropriate security controls. ### 5.1. Threat Modeling Methodology This analysis employs the **STRIDE** threat modeling methodology, a systematic framework developed by Microsoft for identifying security threats across six categories: - **Spoofing Identity**: Threats involving impersonation of users or systems - **Tampering with Data**: Threats involving unauthorized modification of data or system components - **Repudiation**: Threats where users deny performing actions (lack of non-repudiation) - **Information Disclosure**: Threats involving unauthorized access to sensitive information - **Denial of Service**: Threats causing disruption or unavailability of system services - **Elevation of Privilege**: Threats allowing unauthorized access to privileged functions For each identified threat, the analysis evaluates **likelihood** (attack complexity and exposure) and **impact** (potential damage to confidentiality, integrity, or availability) to determine overall **risk level**. The methodology ensures comprehensive coverage of security concerns across all system components and interfaces. ### 5.2. Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment #### 5.2.1. Threat Overview The following table provides a quick reference of all identified threats. Detailed analysis including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where available) is provided in the section below. | Threat ID | Component | Category | Risk Level | Likelihood | Impact | |-----------|-----------|----------|------------|-----------|--------| | THR-001 | User Management (Auth service / Identity Service / SSO) | Spoofing | Critical | High | High | | THR-006 | Application Services (RBAC) | Elevation of Privilege | Critical | High | High | | THR-028 | Application Services (Session handling / SPA) | Spoofing | Critical | High | High | | THR-002 | Frontend Layer | Tampering | High | Medium | High | | THR-003 | Edge & API Gateway | Denial of Service | High | Medium | High | | THR-004 | Application Services (APIs) | Tampering | High | Medium | High | | THR-005 | Frontend Layer / Application Services | Information Disclosure | High | High | Medium | | THR-007 | Data Storage (Relational DB / Object Storage) | Information Disclosure | High | Medium | High | | THR-008 | File Management (Uploads & Previews) | Tampering | High | Low | High | | THR-010 | Integrations & External Services (DocuSign / Calendar / Email) | Spoofing | High | Medium | High | | THR-012 | Real-time Notifications (WebSockets/Push) | Information Disclosure | High | Medium | High | | THR-013 | Observability & Audit | Repudiation | High | Medium | High | | THR-015 | File Management (Malware scanning integration) | Tampering | High | Medium | High | | THR-016 | Reporting & Exports (CSV/PDF) | Information Disclosure | High | Medium | High | | THR-018 | Edge & API Gateway | Spoofing | High | Medium | High | | THR-020 | Data Storage (KMS / Key Management) | Elevation of Privilege | High | Low | High | | THR-021 | Integrations & External Services (CAT Tools / 3rd party translation vendors) | Information Disclosure | High | Medium | High | | THR-024 | Edge & API Gateway | Information Disclosure | High | High | Medium | | THR-026 | Data Storage (Immutable Audit Store) | Tampering | High | Low | High | | THR-030 | Integrations & External Services (Agency IdPs) | Spoofing | High | Low | High | | THR-009 | Background & Queue Services | Denial of Service | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-011 | Application Services (Assignment Engine) | Tampering | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-014 | Notifications (Email/SMS) | Information Disclosure | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-017 | Integrations & External Services (Calendar APIs) | Information Disclosure | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-019 | Application Services (API endpoints) | Tampering | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-022 | Background & Queue Services (File processing) | Repudiation | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-023 | Frontend Layer (Accessibility / Multi-language) | Information Disclosure | Medium | Low | Medium | | THR-025 | Application Services (Activity feed / Comments) | Tampering | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-027 | Integrations & External Services (Email/SMS Providers) | Denial of Service | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-029 | Data Storage (Analytics Store / Reporting) | Information Disclosure | Medium | Medium | Medium | **Total Threats Identified:** 30 #### 5.2.2. Detailed Threat Analysis This section provides comprehensive analysis of each identified threat, including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where controls have been evaluated). Threats are organized by risk level for prioritized review. ##### Critical Risk Threats **THR-001** - User Management (Auth service / Identity Service / SSO) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak passwords, or exploiting SSO misconfigurations (SAML/OIDC replay or assertion manipulation) to register/log in as Admin, Coordinator, or Agency User. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce MFA for all administrative and agency accounts; require strong password policies and adaptive/auth risk-based authentication; implement secure SSO configurations with strict audience, issuer, cert validation and short assertion lifetimes; monitor and block credential stuffing; enforce account lockout and anomaly detection; rotate IdP trust keys on schedule. - **Controls Applied:** MFA, Strict SAML/OIDC config, Adaptive auth, Account lockout - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-006** - Application Services (RBAC) - **Category:** Elevation of Privilege - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant boundaries or gain Admin privileges through insecure checks in APIs or direct object reference manipulation. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce server-side RBAC and ABAC checks for every API endpoint; implement per-tenant authorization checks and ownership verification; use centralized authorization service, deny-by-default policies, and regular authorization tests; log privileged operations and alert anomalous privilege changes. - **Controls Applied:** Centralized RBAC, Tenant isolation, Authorization tests - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-028** - Application Services (Session handling / SPA) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Session cookie theft via XSS or insecure storage leads to account takeover; SPA storing tokens in localStorage increases risk of token theft by malicious scripts. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Avoid storing tokens in localStorage; use secure, HttpOnly cookies with SameSite protections; implement refresh tokens with rotation; set short lifetimes and revoke sessions on suspicious activity; harden against XSS. - **Controls Applied:** HttpOnly cookies, Token rotation - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review ##### High Risk Threats **THR-002** - Frontend Layer - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Client-side code or assets are tampered (e.g., compromised CDN or supply chain) delivering malicious JS to users leading to credential theft or session hijacking. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use subresource integrity (SRI) where applicable; serve critical JS from trusted origins; enable CSP with strict directives; sign and verify static assets; enforce strong CDN security and origin access; monitor for integrity changes; implement CSP reporting and SCA for dependencies. - **Controls Applied:** CSP, SRI, Signed assets - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-003** - Edge & API Gateway - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Large-scale or targeted request floods or slow POST attacks overwhelm gateway or backend services, preventing booking creation or critical operations (availability impact for government workflows). - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement WAF rate limiting, per-tenant quotas, IP reputation blocks, WAF bot mitigation, autoscaling, circuit breakers, backpressure on queues, and use DDoS protection services; implement graceful degradation for non-critical features. - **Controls Applied:** WAF, DDoS Protection, Rate limiting - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-004** - Application Services (APIs) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL injection, NoSQL injection, or other injection attacks to alter booking data or corrupt workflows. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use parameterized queries/ORMs, input validation and allowlists, stored procedures where appropriate; adopt strong ORM/DB access patterns; implement centralized input validation and WAF rules; perform code reviews and automated SAST/DAST; apply least-privilege DB accounts. - **Controls Applied:** Parameterized queries, Input validation, SAST/DAST - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-005** - Frontend Layer / Application Services - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams allowing escalation to session theft, data exfiltration, or unwanted actions with user context. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Sanitize and encode all user-supplied content server-side; use CSP and httpOnly, Secure cookies; implement Content Security Policy and input/output encoding libraries; validate file previews and remove embedded scripts in previews. - **Controls Applied:** Output encoding, CSP, Sanitization - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-007** - Data Storage (Relational DB / Object Storage) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in object storage or DB due to misconfigured permissions, leaked keys, or lack of encryption at rest. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Encrypt data at rest with customer-managed KMS keys; enforce object storage ACLs with per-tenant prefixes; implement fine-grained IAM roles and rotate credentials; enforce server-side access checks; conduct periodic permission audits and automated scanning for public buckets. - **Controls Applied:** KMS, Bucket ACLs, IAM least privilege - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-008** - File Management (Uploads & Previews) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Low | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (man-in-the-middle or integrity manipulation), leading to distribution of manipulated legal/government documents. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use TLS for uploads; validate and store file hashes; maintain version history with immutable storage for audit; sign or notarize important documents; implement upload integrity checks and secure temporary storage; restrict file replacement operations and require approvals for edits to final documents. - **Controls Applied:** TLS, Immutable versions, File hashing - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-010** - Integrations & External Services (DocuSign / Calendar / Email) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Compromise of third-party integration tokens or misconfigured OAuth leads to unauthorized calendar/event creation, e-signature forgeries, or sending emails/SMS as the system. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use secure OAuth with short-lived tokens and refresh token rotation; store secrets in vault/KMS and restrict access; implement least privilege scopes; validate third-party callback endpoints; implement out-of-band verification for critical e-signature flows. - **Controls Applied:** OAuth best practices, Secrets vault - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-012** - Real-time Notifications (WebSockets/Push) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel authorization is flawed or tokens are exposed, e.g., one tenant receives another agency's task updates. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Authenticate and authorize every subscription with short-lived tokens; segregate channels by tenant ID; verify message recipients server-side before dispatch; encrypt payloads if needed; log subscribe/unsubscribe events. - **Controls Applied:** Channel authorization, Tenant segregation - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-013** - Observability & Audit - **Category:** Repudiation - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alter or delete logs, preventing forensic investigation of who created/approved bookings or changed assignments. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use immutable, append-only log store with WORM retention; replicate logs to a separate secure environment; sign logs; restrict access to log write/delete operations; enable alerts on log volume/retention changes; monitor integrity of audit store. - **Controls Applied:** Immutable log storage, WORM retention, Log signing - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-015** - File Management (Malware scanning integration) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Malicious or weaponized documents bypass malware scanning via zero-day or scanner evasion and are distributed to interpreters/reviewers, resulting in endpoint compromise. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use defense-in-depth: multiple scanning engines, sandbox file execution, strict preview sanitization, block risky file types, isolate downloads to secure viewer, maintain up-to-date scanning signatures and heuristics, and restrict who can download raw files. - **Controls Applied:** Multi-engine scanning, Sandboxing, Secure viewer - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-016** - Reporting & Exports (CSV/PDF) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Report export functionality exposes aggregated or raw PII if export permissions are weak or exports are cached/stored insecurely, leading to data leaks or bulk extraction via automation. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Restrict export permissions by role and tenancy; watermark/track exports; apply rate limits and require re-authentication for large exports; store exports in secure temporary storage with short TTL; review export content for PII minimization. - **Controls Applied:** Export RBAC, Watermarking, TTL storage - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-018** - Edge & API Gateway - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Session fixation or session token theft via insecure cookies, predictable tokens, or lack of binding to client leads to unauthorized API calls using another user's session. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use secure, HttpOnly, SameSite=strict cookies or token binding; enforce TLS; rotate session tokens on privilege changes; limit session lifetime and implement device session management; bind tokens to IP/device fingerprints for high-risk operations. - **Controls Applied:** Secure cookie flags, Session rotation - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-020** - Data Storage (KMS / Key Management) - **Category:** Elevation of Privilege - **Likelihood:** Low | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Compromise or misconfiguration of KMS permissions allows attackers to decrypt stored data, re-encrypt to hide activity, or create keys enabling persistent access to tenant data. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce strict IAM for KMS with limited principals; require multi-person approval for key deletion/rotation; audit KMS operations; use separate keys per tenant/classification; enable CMEK and key access logs to immutable store. - **Controls Applied:** KMS IAM, Key separation, Audit KMS ops - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-021** - Integrations & External Services (CAT Tools / 3rd party translation vendors) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Optional integration with external CAT tools may send source documents or PII to third parties with weaker controls, resulting in data exfiltration or vendor misuse. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Perform vendor security assessments and contractual SLAs; use encryption in transit and at rest; require explicit agency consent per document; provide option to keep data in-house; anonymize or redact PII before sending where possible. - **Controls Applied:** Vendor assessment, Contractual controls - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-024** - Edge & API Gateway - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Verbose error messages or stack traces returned by API gateway reveal internal architecture, DB queries, or sensitive identifiers aiding attackers in crafting targeted attacks. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Normalize and standardize error messages at edge; log detailed errors internally only; avoid leaking internal IDs or SQL errors to clients; implement structured error codes and document them for integrators. - **Controls Applied:** Error handling standardization, Central logging - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-026** - Data Storage (Immutable Audit Store) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Low | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Insider or privileged account modifies or deletes audit records in mutable stores before they are replicated to the immutable store to cover actions like unauthorized assignments. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Write audit events directly to immutable store or append-only pipeline; segregate duties so no single actor can both perform and erase actions; alert on audit write failures or missing replication; use cryptographic log signing. - **Controls Applied:** Write-only audit pipeline, Separation of duties - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-030** - Integrations & External Services (Agency IdPs) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Low | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Compromised agency IdP or weak federation mapping allows an attacker from an agency tenant to escalate privileges or impersonate another agency's user due to flawed tenant mapping or federated claims trust. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Validate federated claims and tenant mapping strictly; use audience and org ID checks; implement per-IdP tenant boundaries and allowlist vetted IdPs; require additional attestation for cross-tenant actions; implement SCIM and periodic identity reconciliation. - **Controls Applied:** Federation validation, Per-IdP tenant mapping - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review ##### Medium Risk Threats **THR-009** - Background & Queue Services - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversions or fake jobs) causing queue starvation, high costs, delayed notifications and assignment failures. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce job rate limits and per-tenant quotas; validate job origins and authenticate enqueuers; require signed job payloads; apply resource limits and cost controls; monitor queue depth and anomalous job patterns. - **Controls Applied:** Rate limiting, Job quotas - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-011** - Application Services (Assignment Engine) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Manipulating assignment logic or job payloads (e.g., by submitting crafted requests) to favor certain interpreters/translators or to bypass availability checks. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Validate assignment decisions server-side; sign/verify messages between microservices; create immutable assignment audit trail; implement input allowlists; rate-limit assignment-related endpoints; monitor for anomalies in assignment patterns. - **Controls Applied:** Server-side validation, Signed inter-service messages - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-014** - Notifications (Email/SMS) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Sensitive booking or PII included in email/SMS notifications could be intercepted or sent to wrong recipient due to template injection or address manipulation. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Avoid including PII in notifications; use templating with strict parameterization; validate recipient addresses; support secure links requiring authentication for details; log notification deliveries and failures; apply TLS for email delivery (MTA-STS, DANE where possible). - **Controls Applied:** Secure templates, TLS email delivery - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-017** - Integrations & External Services (Calendar APIs) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Calendar synchronization leaks sensitive booking details into external calendars if scope over-provisioning occurs or if tokens are stolen, exposing schedule and possibly PII externally. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use minimal OAuth scopes, display clear consent to agency; allow optional redaction of event details; rotate tokens; restrict calendar sync to approved domains; log calendar API calls and detect abnormal sync volumes. - **Controls Applied:** Least-privilege OAuth, Token rotation - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-019** - Application Services (API endpoints) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) on state-changing endpoints (e.g., create/edit bookings) allows attackers to trigger actions in an authenticated user's context. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Require anti-CSRF tokens for state-changing operations or use same-site cookies and validate Origin/Referer headers; require reauthentication for sensitive operations. - **Controls Applied:** CSRF tokens, SameSite cookies - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-022** - Background & Queue Services (File processing) - **Category:** Repudiation - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Background job failures or retries alter timestamps or state transitions without clear audit, allowing actors to deny actions (e.g., who approved a version) or hide malicious changes. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Create immutable event logs for job lifecycle; include job IDs and correlation IDs; idempotent processing and versioned state transitions; notify on unexpected job failures; preserve original timestamps where required. - **Controls Applied:** Immutable job logs, Idempotent jobs - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-023** - Frontend Layer (Accessibility / Multi-language) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Low | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Localization/i18n resource injection or misuse causes disclosure of environment data or secrets if translation strings are loaded from untrusted sources or include interpolated sensitive values. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Ship localization resources as part of built artifacts; sanitize and review translation strings; avoid runtime interpolation of secrets; restrict language packs from third-party sources; test localized UI for security-sensitive content leakage. - **Controls Applied:** Static localization, Translation review - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-025** - Application Services (Activity feed / Comments) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Comment @mentions or activity feed allow injection of links to malicious sites or SSRF payloads in user-supplied content, enabling server-side or client-side exploitation. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Sanitize and canonicalize links; restrict allowed URL schemes; render external links with rel="noopener noreferrer" and warning UI; block internal IP ranges from being referenced; scan comments for malicious patterns. - **Controls Applied:** Link sanitization, SSRF protection - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-027** - Integrations & External Services (Email/SMS Providers) - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Third-party email or SMS provider outage causes missed urgent booking alerts and SMS alerts, impacting mission-critical scheduling and response. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement multi-provider fallback for SMS/email; queue outgoing notifications and retry with backoff; provide alternative in-app critical alerts; monitor provider SLAs and implement heartbeat checks. - **Controls Applied:** Multi-provider, Retry/backoff - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-029** - Data Storage (Analytics Store / Reporting) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Improper anonymization in analytics/reporting store exposes sensitive aggregates or individual PII through re-identification or by querying granular exports. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Apply differential privacy or strong anonymization; limit granularity for exported data; apply role-based access to analytics; monitor and limit ad-hoc query capabilities; sanitize report datasets. - **Controls Applied:** Anonymization, RBAC - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **Risk Reduction Summary:** - **Critical Risk Reduction:** 3 threats reduced from Critical to lower levels - **High Risk Reduction:** 17 threats reduced from High to lower levels - **Residual Risk Distribution:** 0 threats remain at Critical/High level ### 5.3. Risk Summary The highest priority threats center on authentication/authorization failures, data exposure of sensitive government documents and PII, and tampering of assignment and file workflows. Critical items include credential theft and SSO misconfiguration (THR-001), broken access control and privilege escalation across tenants (THR-006), session/token theft and XSS risk (THR-005, THR-028), and audit/log integrity issues preventing forensics (THR-013, THR-026). Key attack vectors are: credential stuffing and SSO assertion attacks; client-side and API injection vectors (XSS, SQLi, SSRF); misconfigured cloud storage or KMS leading to data exposure; compromised third-party integrations (calendar, DocuSign, CAT tools) leaking or modifying data; and resource exhaustion attacks against gateways and background processors. Priority security control areas: 1) Strong identity and access management — enforce MFA, robust SSO configuration, centralized RBAC and per-tenant authorization checks; 2) Data protection — encrypt-at-rest/in-transit, KMS segregation, strict object storage ACLs, and DLP for PII; 3) Application hardening — input validation, parameterized queries, CSP, sanitization, and secure session handling; 4) Integration security — least-privilege OAuth scopes, secrets management, vendor risk assessments and token rotation; 5) Observability & integrity — immutable audit logs, log signing, and monitoring/alerting for anomalous behavior; 6) Operational resilience — rate limits, quotas, DDoS protection and multi-provider redundancy for notifications. Addressing these areas will reduce critical risks to medium or low residual levels when controls are implemented effectively; remaining risks require ongoing review, regular testing (SAST/DAST/Pen Test), and a strong incident response capability. --- ## 6. Multi-Standard Security Requirements Mapping This section maps each functional requirement to specific security controls from multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. This multi-standard approach provides comprehensive coverage across application-level, enterprise-level, and organizational-level security domains: - **OWASP ASVS**: Application-level security controls (code, APIs, authentication, session management) - **NIST SP 800-53**: Enterprise security controls (governance, risk management, incident response) - **ISO 27001**: Information security management controls (policies, procedures, organizational controls) Requirements are prioritized based on risk assessment and compliance needs, with controls selected from the most appropriate standard(s) for each requirement type. ### 6.1. Recommended ASVS Compliance Level **Recommended Level:** L2 **Level 2: Standard** Recommended for most production applications. Provides comprehensive security coverage suitable for applications handling sensitive data or operating in regulated environments. Includes controls for authentication, authorization, data protection, and secure communications. The recommendation considers factors such as: - Data sensitivity and classification levels - Regulatory and compliance requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.) - Threat landscape and risk assessment from threat modeling - Business criticality and potential impact of security incidents All security controls referenced in this document align with this recommended compliance level. ### 6.2. Requirements Mapping This section maps each high-level requirement to specific security controls from multiple standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed descriptions, relevance explanations, and integration guidance. Controls are grouped by standard for clarity. #### 6.2.1. REQ-001: User registration and login with email, SSO, and multi-factor authentication ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V2.1** **Requirement:** Verify that authentication requirements for account creation and login use secure password handling, support for MFA, and integration with federated identity providers (SSO) where appropriate. **Relevance:** Directly addresses secure registration and login mechanisms, including support for MFA and SSO integrations which are core to this requirement. **Integration Tips:** Implement secure password storage (bcrypt/Argon2), provide MFA options (TOTP, FIDO2), and integrate SSO via standard protocols (OIDC/SAML) with secure token handling. **Verification Method:** Review authentication design, inspect MFA and SSO configuration, and perform authentication flow tests including replay/resilience tests. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **IA-2** **Requirement:** Organizational users shall be uniquely identified and authenticated. Supports multi-factor authentication for access to privileged and sensitive accounts. **Relevance:** Specifies unique identification and MFA for users — applicable to user registration and login flows to ensure strong authentication. **Integration Tips:** Enforce unique IDs, require MFA for privileged roles, and document authentication assurance levels. Use identity provider metadata and secure token storage. **Verification Method:** Inspect user account lifecycle, sample accounts for ANA/MFA enforcement, and verify logs show MFA usage for privileged accesses. **Priority:** Critical ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.9.4.2** **Requirement:** The allocation and use of privileged access rights shall be restricted and controlled. Secure authentication techniques should be used, including multi-factor where necessary. **Relevance:** Reinforces controlled provisioning and the use of secure authentication, which maps to registration, login, and role-based privilege assignment. **Integration Tips:** Establish access provisioning procedures that require MFA for elevated roles and periodic review of accounts. Document SSO integrations in supplier agreements. **Verification Method:** Review provisioning procedures, sampling of privileged accounts, and evidence of MFA enforcement and periodic access reviews. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.2. REQ-002: Role-based access control (Admin, Coordinator, Interpreter, Translator, Reviewer, Agency User) ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V4.1** **Requirement:** Verify role-based access control is enforced server-side and follows the principle of least privilege; ensure separation of duties and role mappings are resistant to tampering. **Relevance:** Directly applicable to implementing and enforcing RBAC for named roles in the system. **Integration Tips:** Enforce RBAC checks server-side for every operation, map roles to least-privilege permissions, and protect role assignments from unauthorized changes. **Verification Method:** Code and configuration review of authorization checks, role-permission matrix review, and tests attempting privilege escalation. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AC-2** **Requirement:** The organization manages information system accounts, establishing, activating, modifying, disabling, and terminating accounts and applying role-based privileges. **Relevance:** Covers account lifecycle and role assignment processes essential to RBAC management across roles like Admin and Coordinator. **Integration Tips:** Implement account lifecycle workflows with approval and audit trails for role changes. Integrate provisioning with SSO where appropriate. **Verification Method:** Review account provisioning workflows, audit records for role changes, and test role deactivation scenarios. **Priority:** Critical **AC-6** **Requirement:** The organization employs the principle of least privilege, ensuring users have the minimum privileges necessary to perform tasks. **Relevance:** Affirms least-privilege enforcement for each RBAC role to reduce attack surface and privilege misuse. **Integration Tips:** Define role scopes narrowly and implement permission review cadence; apply separation of duties where roles overlap. **Verification Method:** Permission audits, automated checks for unused privileges, and penetration testing for privilege escalation. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.3. REQ-003: User profiles capturing language pairs, certifications, availability, and vetting status ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V5.8** **Requirement:** Verify that personal data stored in user profiles is minimized, protected at rest and in transit, and access-controlled. Sensitive attributes such as certifications and vetting status must be protected and auditable. **Relevance:** Directly applies to protecting profile attributes which may include PII and sensitive vetting/certification data. **Integration Tips:** Classify profile fields, encrypt sensitive fields at rest, restrict access via RBAC and tenant controls, and log access to vetting/certification attributes. **Verification Method:** Data classification review, check encryption of sensitive fields, and access log sampling for profile attribute reads. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **PL-2** **Requirement:** The organization determines and documents the security and privacy requirements for the system, including protection of personal data in user profiles. **Relevance:** Ensures security/privacy requirements for profile data are documented and enforced across the system. **Integration Tips:** Document privacy requirements, incorporate them into system design and contracts, and ensure controls (encryption, access restrictions) meet documented needs. **Verification Method:** Check system security requirements documentation and traceability to implemented controls protecting profile data. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.8.2.3** **Requirement:** Information should be classified according to its value, sensitivity, and criticality; controls should be applied based on classification (e.g., personal data in user profiles). **Relevance:** Supports classification of profile data to determine controls for certifications and vetting information. **Integration Tips:** Define classification labels for profile attributes and map handling rules (access, retention, encryption) accordingly. **Verification Method:** Review classification policy and evidence that profile fields are handled per classification (encryption, access controls). **Priority:** High #### 6.2.4. REQ-004: Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/authorization separation ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V4.6** **Requirement:** Verify tenant isolation and authorization boundaries in multi-tenant applications to prevent data leakage between tenants; enforce authorization checks per workspace. **Relevance:** Directly addresses tenant/workspace isolation and prevents cross-tenant data access. **Integration Tips:** Implement tenant identifiers in data access layers, enforce tenant-aware authorization checks for every request, and perform tenant separation testing. **Verification Method:** Multi-tenant penetration tests, data access reviews ensuring tenant ID enforcement, and code review of authorization logic. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SC-7** **Requirement:** The information system monitors and controls communications at external and internal boundaries and isolates components as necessary. **Relevance:** Applies to isolating tenant environments and monitoring flows between tenant boundaries. **Integration Tips:** Use network and application boundaries (namespaces, VPCs, access controls) to isolate tenant data and monitor cross-tenant flows. **Verification Method:** Network segmentation review, monitoring of inter-tenant communications, and boundary enforcement tests. **Priority:** High **AC-4** **Requirement:** The information system enforces approved authorizations for controlling the flow of information among interconnected system components and tenants. **Relevance:** Ensures information flow policies prevent unauthorized cross-tenant data movement. **Integration Tips:** Implement information flow rules in middleware and enforce at data storage layer; audit and block illegal flows across tenants. **Verification Method:** Review information flow policies, test attempts to access other tenants' data, and examine enforcement logs. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.5. REQ-005: Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings with scheduling and location details ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V4.3** **Requirement:** Verify that business functions like creating, editing, and deleting resources enforce proper authorization checks and protect against insecure direct object references and tampering. **Relevance:** Essential to prevent unauthorized booking modifications and enforce correct business rules. **Integration Tips:** Validate authorization for each booking action server-side, implement object ID mapping to avoid IDORs, and validate scheduling constraints. **Verification Method:** Functional tests for authorization enforcement, IDOR tests, and business logic fuzzing. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AU-2** **Requirement:** The organization defines auditable events for the information system, including creation, modification, and deletion of records. **Relevance:** Requires logging create/edit/delete events for bookings to enable forensic and compliance needs. **Integration Tips:** Log booking lifecycle events with user IDs, timestamps, and before/after states; protect logs from tampering. **Verification Method:** Review audit log configuration and sample booking event logs for completeness and integrity. **Priority:** High **SI-10** **Requirement:** The information system validates inputs to prevent malicious data that could affect scheduling and location information; ensure integrity checks. **Relevance:** Protects against injection or malformed data in booking scheduling/location fields which could corrupt schedules or leak data. **Integration Tips:** Apply strict server-side validation, canonicalize location inputs, and use geolocation APIs with validation. **Verification Method:** Input validation tests, fuzzing location/scheduling fields, and review of validation code. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.6. REQ-006: Create translation jobs with document upload, assignment, review, and versioned deliverables ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V5.5** **Requirement:** Verify secure handling of file uploads, including virus scanning, storage with access control, and prevention of direct access to uploaded files. Ensure versioning and integrity controls for document deliverables. **Relevance:** Directly applies to secure upload, storage, scanning, and version control of translation documents. **Integration Tips:** Scan files on upload, store in access-controlled object storage with signed URLs for downloads, and maintain immutable version metadata. **Verification Method:** Review file upload pipeline, malware scan logs, access control configuration, and version history integrity. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **MP-4** **Requirement:** Protection of digital and non-digital media containing sensitive information, including proper access controls and handling of file storage. **Relevance:** Addresses protection of stored translation artifacts and their controlled access. **Integration Tips:** Apply encryption at rest, access controls per tenant/role, and document handling procedures for assignments and reviews. **Verification Method:** Inspect storage encryption settings, access policies, and sample access records for document retrieval. **Priority:** High **SI-3** **Requirement:** The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, which includes malware scanning of files and systems. **Relevance:** Ensures uploaded documents are scanned to prevent malware spread during review and assignment. **Integration Tips:** Integrate antivirus/anti-malware scanning in file ingestion and quarantine suspicious files; update signatures regularly. **Verification Method:** Review scanning integration logs, test with benign test files, and check quarantine policies. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.7. REQ-007: Automated assignment engine to match interpreters/translators by language, availability, certifications, and location ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V2.6** **Requirement:** Verify business logic and automated decision-making enforce authorization, prevent abuse, and ensure correctness and fairness in matching algorithms. **Relevance:** Directly applicable to validating logic, preventing abuse, and ensuring fairness and correctness in automatic matching. **Integration Tips:** Design algorithm governance (inputs validation, auditability), include explainability logs for matches, and enforce authorization checks for assignment actions. **Verification Method:** Review algorithm logic, perform tests for edge cases, and audit decision logs for correctness and bias. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **PL-8** **Requirement:** The organization incorporates privacy and security requirements into the system architecture, including considerations for automated decision processes and data minimization. **Relevance:** Requires the assignment engine to adhere to privacy/data minimization and security by design. **Integration Tips:** Minimize personal data used for matching, document privacy impacts, and enforce access and logging for automated decisions. **Verification Method:** Architecture review, data flow analysis, and privacy impact assessment for the matching engine. **Priority:** High **SA-5** **Requirement:** Security requirements for system components including custom algorithms should be specified and evaluated, ensuring integrity of automated assignment engines. **Relevance:** Covers specifying security requirements for the automated engine component and ensuring its integrity. **Integration Tips:** Define security requirements for algorithm components, conduct code review, and validate supplier libraries used by the engine. **Verification Method:** Requirement traceability review, code audits, and component security assessments. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.8. REQ-008: Task lifecycle management with configurable stages and progress tracking ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V4.4** **Requirement:** Verify workflows enforce authorization at each stage, maintain integrity of state transitions, and prevent unauthorized manipulation of task lifecycle. **Relevance:** Directly ensures lifecycle stages are authorized and state transitions cannot be tampered with. **Integration Tips:** Implement state transition guards, validate user permissions at each stage change, and log transitions for auditability. **Verification Method:** Workflow testing (attempting unauthorized transitions), code review of state machine, and log inspection. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AU-6** **Requirement:** The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records for indications of inappropriate or unusual activity affecting workflow and task states. **Relevance:** Ensures monitoring of lifecycle changes to detect misuse or anomalies. **Integration Tips:** Configure alerts for unusual state transitions, schedule regular audit reviews, and retain transition logs according to retention policy. **Verification Method:** Review audit reports for lifecycle events and sample logs for anomaly detection. **Priority:** Medium **CM-3** **Requirement:** The organization develops, documents, and maintains baseline configurations and enforces control over changes which applies to configurable workflow stages. **Relevance:** Applies to managing configurable stages and ensuring changes are controlled and auditable. **Integration Tips:** Treat workflow configurations as code with version control, approvals, and change management processes. **Verification Method:** Inspect configuration change logs, code repository history, and approval records. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.9. REQ-009: Attachments, comments, mentions (@mentions), and per-task activity logs ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V5.6** **Requirement:** Verify handling of user-provided content including attachments and comments, ensuring input validation, storage protection, and audit logging of user actions and mentions. **Relevance:** Directly maps to protecting user-generated content and ensuring logs for actions and mentions. **Integration Tips:** Validate and sanitize comments/mentions, restrict attachment types, protect stored content with access controls, and log all per-task interactions. **Verification Method:** Content injection tests, file upload security tests, and auditing of comment and activity logs. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AU-8** **Requirement:** The information system time-stamps audit records to provide accurate sequencing of events in activity logs. **Relevance:** Ensures activity logs for tasks include reliable timestamps for event sequencing and forensics. **Integration Tips:** Use synchronized time sources (NTP), record timezone-aware timestamps, and protect timestamp integrity in logs. **Verification Method:** Check log timestamps for consistency and NTP configuration; validate event sequencing in samples. **Priority:** Medium ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.12.4.3** **Requirement:** Administrator and operator activities shall be logged and the logs protected to ensure traceability, which extends to user activity logs for tasks. **Relevance:** Supports requirement to log interactions and ensure traceability for auditing mentions and comments. **Integration Tips:** Ensure activity logs are access-controlled and retained per policy; protect logs from tampering and provide audit capabilities. **Verification Method:** Review logging policy, access controls on logs, and sample logs for completeness. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.10. REQ-010: Real-time updates (notifications/WS) and an activity feed showing recent team actions ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V3.7** **Requirement:** Verify secure use of real-time communication channels (WebSockets, SSE) including encrypted transport (TLS), authentication, and protection against message tampering and replay attacks. **Relevance:** Directly applicable to implementing secure real-time updates and activity feeds. **Integration Tips:** Use TLS for all real-time channels, authenticate connections (token-based), implement message integrity checks, and prevent replay with nonces or sequence numbers. **Verification Method:** Review WebSocket/TLS configs, test message tampering/replay scenarios, and verify authentication enforcement on connections. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SC-8** **Requirement:** The information system protects the confidentiality and integrity of transmitted information. **Relevance:** Ensures real-time feeds maintain confidentiality and integrity during transmission. **Integration Tips:** Apply end-to-end TLS, minimize data in real-time payloads, and use authenticated encryption where appropriate. **Verification Method:** Network captures to verify TLS usage and payload encryption; review transport-level configs. **Priority:** High **SC-5** **Requirement:** The information system protects against or limits the effects of denial-of-service attacks, relevant to real-time notification channels. **Relevance:** Important to maintain availability of real-time updates and activity feeds under load or attack. **Integration Tips:** Implement rate-limiting, connection limits, and DDoS protection for real-time endpoints. **Verification Method:** Load and DDoS simulation tests and monitoring of real-time channel availability. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.11. REQ-011: File management: upload, preview, download, scanning, and file version history ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V5.5** **Requirement:** Verify secure handling of file uploads, including virus scanning, storage with access control, and prevention of direct access to uploaded files. Ensure versioning and integrity controls for document deliverables. **Relevance:** Direct match for secure file lifecycle management including scanning and versioning. **Integration Tips:** Use quarantines for suspicious uploads, signed short-lived URLs for previews/downloads, and maintain immutable version metadata with checksums. **Verification Method:** Review file handling pipeline, test upload of known-malicious test files, and verify version history integrity. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SI-3** **Requirement:** The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, which applies to handling uploaded documents via scanning. **Relevance:** Mandates malware scanning for uploaded files to prevent malicious code propagation. **Integration Tips:** Integrate enterprise-grade malware scanners and sandboxing for previewing files; maintain signature and heuristic updates. **Verification Method:** Check malware scanning logs and sandboxing outcomes; periodic testing with EICAR/test samples. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.12.2.1** **Requirement:** Controls shall be implemented to detect and protect against malware, including scanning of files. **Relevance:** Supports organizational requirement for malware protections in file management. **Integration Tips:** Define operational procedures for malware handling in file operations and ensure timely updates and monitoring. **Verification Method:** Operational policy review, scanning tool configuration inspection, and test evidence. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.12. REQ-012: Role- and workspace-based file and task access controls ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V4.1** **Requirement:** Verify role-based access control is enforced server-side and follows the principle of least privilege; ensure separation of duties and role mappings are resistant to tampering. **Relevance:** Applies to ensuring files/tasks are accessible only according to role and workspace policies. **Integration Tips:** Enforce RBAC with tenant-aware checks on file and task APIs, and prevent privilege escalation between workspaces. **Verification Method:** Access control testing across roles, attempt unauthorized file access across workspaces, and code review. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AC-3** **Requirement:** The information system enforces approved authorizations for logical access to information and system resources, supporting role and attribute-based controls. **Relevance:** Ensures enforcement mechanisms exist for role/workspace-based access at the system level. **Integration Tips:** Implement centralized authorization service that evaluates role, workspace, and attributes before granting access. **Verification Method:** Inspect authorization service logs, policy definitions, and run access matrix tests. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.9.1.1** **Requirement:** Access control policy shall be established based on business and information security requirements, including role and workspace specific restrictions. **Relevance:** Mandates a policy foundation for role/workspace access controls. **Integration Tips:** Document workspace access policies and map them to technical controls; include exception and review processes. **Verification Method:** Policy review and evidence of policy enforcement through access logs and audits. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.13. REQ-013: Email, in-app, and optional SMS notifications (assignments, status updates, mentions, approvals, daily summaries) ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V3.8** **Requirement:** Verify that outbound email/SMS notifications use secure channels, proper authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), and protect sensitive content. Ensure user preferences and opt-outs are respected. **Relevance:** Directly relevant to securing notification channels and protecting content/privacy preferences. **Integration Tips:** Configure SPF/DKIM/DMARC, minimize sensitive data in messages, provide opt-out controls, and secure SMS providers with strong contracts and minimal data. **Verification Method:** Inspect mail system configs, test header authentication, and review notification content for data leakage. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SC-13** **Requirement:** The information system implements cryptographic mechanisms to protect the confidentiality and integrity of information during transmission, such as notification messages. **Relevance:** Ensures notifications transmitted over networks are protected in transit. **Integration Tips:** Use TLS for API calls and webhooks, avoid sending sensitive data in plain-text notifications, and use signed tokens for webhook authenticity. **Verification Method:** Network capture review to confirm TLS usage and inspection of outbound message payloads. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.13.2.3** **Requirement:** Information involved in electronic messaging shall be protected in accordance with the information transfer policies and procedures. **Relevance:** Requires formal handling and protection of electronic notifications. **Integration Tips:** Document messaging policies covering email/SMS/in-app channels and ensure provider contracts reflect security expectations. **Verification Method:** Policy and contract review, plus sampling message handling procedures. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.14. REQ-014: Dashboards and reporting: task statistics, productivity, exports (CSV/PDF) ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V5.8** **Requirement:** Verify that reporting and export functionality enforces access control, minimizes sensitive data exposure, and provides aggregation or redaction where needed for privacy. **Relevance:** Directly applies to securing dashboards and export features to prevent unauthorized data disclosure. **Integration Tips:** Enforce RBAC for reports, redact or aggregate sensitive fields, and watermark or track exports with user identifiers. **Verification Method:** Review report generation code, test exports under different roles, and verify redaction/aggregation. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **PL-2** **Requirement:** The organization determines and documents security and privacy requirements for systems, including reporting functions and export capabilities. **Relevance:** Ensures reporting/export security requirements are documented and implemented. **Integration Tips:** Include export controls in system requirements and ensure compliance via QA and privacy reviews. **Verification Method:** Traceability review from requirements to implementation and testing of export controls. **Priority:** Medium ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.8.2.1** **Requirement:** Information shall be classified and handling procedures established; reports and exports should follow handling rules to prevent unauthorized disclosure. **Relevance:** Mandates classification-driven handling for exported reporting data. **Integration Tips:** Classify report outputs and apply handling rules (encryption, access controls) accordingly before allowing downloads. **Verification Method:** Check classification labels on report datasets and verify enforcement of handling rules on exports. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.15. REQ-015: Agency financial and performance reporting (spend, SLA metrics) ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V5.8** **Requirement:** Verify that sensitive financial and performance data is protected, access is restricted based on role and tenancy, and reporting includes integrity checks and aggregation to limit exposure. **Relevance:** Directly relevant to protecting financial reports and SLA metrics from unauthorized access or manipulation. **Integration Tips:** Apply strong access controls, use integrity checks (hashes, signatures) on report data, and aggregate sensitive metrics where possible. **Verification Method:** Access policy review for financial reports and verification of integrity controls on exported data. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **PL-2** **Requirement:** The organization determines and documents security and privacy requirements for systems, including financial reporting and metrics handling. **Relevance:** Ensures that financial reporting requirements are specified and met by the system. **Integration Tips:** Define compliance and integrity requirements for financial modules and enforce via secure development and testing. **Verification Method:** Review requirements documentation and test financial reporting modules for access and integrity. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.18.1.4** **Requirement:** Ensure compliance with legal and contractual requirements related to processing and reporting financial and personal data. **Relevance:** Useful if financial reports contain personal data or are subject to contractual obligations; supports compliance needs. **Integration Tips:** Map legal/regulatory requirements to reporting features and apply contractual controls with agencies. **Verification Method:** Legal/compliance review and evidence of controls meeting contractual requirements. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.16. REQ-016: Integrations: Outlook/Teams calendar synchronization for bookings ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V3.9** **Requirement:** Verify integration with third-party APIs uses secure OAuth flows, least privilege scopes, and token management with proper refresh and revocation handling. **Relevance:** Directly applies to calendar sync integrations using OAuth (Microsoft Graph) to ensure secure access. **Integration Tips:** Use OAuth authorization code flow with minimal scopes, store tokens securely, and implement token revocation and consent management. **Verification Method:** Inspect OAuth flows, token storage, and scope usage; test token revocation and refresh. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SA-9** **Requirement:** The organization monitors and controls external system connections and uses contracts and security requirements for integrations. **Relevance:** Requires oversight and contractual controls for external calendar integrations. **Integration Tips:** Define integration security requirements in contracts, monitor API usage, and enforce secure API gateways. **Verification Method:** Review contracts and API usage logs; confirm monitoring and alerting for integration anomalies. **Priority:** Medium ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.13.2.3** **Requirement:** Formal transfer policies, procedures and controls shall be in place to protect transferred information via networks and between organizations, including real-time feeds. **Relevance:** Supports procedures for secure information transfer between system and calendar providers. **Integration Tips:** Document data flows to/from calendar services, enforce encryption in transit, and limit shared data to necessary fields. **Verification Method:** Data flow diagrams and checks that transfers use TLS and minimal data exchange. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.17. REQ-017: Integrations: transactional email service, DocuSign (e-signatures), optional CAT tool integrations ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V3.9** **Requirement:** Verify integration with third-party APIs uses secure OAuth flows, least privilege scopes, and token management with proper refresh and revocation handling. **Relevance:** Applies across external integrations (email providers, DocuSign, CAT tools) to ensure secure API/authentication patterns. **Integration Tips:** Use secure credential storage, least-privilege API credentials, and ensure revocation procedures are available for provider keys. **Verification Method:** Review integration auth methods, secrets management, and test revocation scenarios. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SA-9** **Requirement:** The organization monitors and controls external system connections and uses contracts and security requirements for integrations. **Relevance:** Provides actionable controls for monitoring and controlling third-party integrations. **Integration Tips:** Monitor API calls, log integration activity, and enforce gateway policies to sanitize inputs/outputs with external services. **Verification Method:** API gateway logs, monitoring dashboards, and incident records involving integrations. **Priority:** Medium ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.15.1.1** **Requirement:** Information security requirements for mitigating risks associated with supplier access to the organization's assets should be agreed with suppliers. **Relevance:** Mandates managing supplier/integration risks and contractual security requirements for services like DocuSign and email providers. **Integration Tips:** Establish SLAs, security requirements, and audit rights in supplier contracts; limit data shared with suppliers. **Verification Method:** Contract review for security clauses and evidence of supplier assessments. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.18. REQ-018: Accessibility, responsive UI, and multi-language user interface ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V1.3** **Requirement:** Verify secure design includes accessibility and localization considerations; ensure input validation and encoding are applied across localized interfaces to prevent injection. **Relevance:** Ensures accessibility and localization do not introduce security issues like injection or broken validation. **Integration Tips:** Ensure localized inputs are validated and encoded, review UI frameworks for accessibility features, and include accessibility in secure design reviews. **Verification Method:** Localization input tests, accessibility compliance testing, and review of localized encoding handling. **Level:** L1 | **Priority:** Medium ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SA-11** **Requirement:** Developers should adhere to secure development practices that include validating localized inputs and maintaining responsiveness and accessibility without compromising security. **Relevance:** Encourages secure development processes that incorporate accessibility and localization testing. **Integration Tips:** Include localization and accessibility in secure development lifecycle testing and threat models. **Verification Method:** Secure SDLC artifacts showing localization/security tests and results. **Priority:** Low ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.18.1.1** **Requirement:** Consider legal and regulatory requirements for accessibility and language support where applicable. **Relevance:** Highlights legal/compliance obligations for accessibility and language — useful for design choices. **Integration Tips:** Document applicable accessibility regulations (e.g., WCAG) and ensure UI meets required levels, balancing security and usability. **Verification Method:** Compliance checklist and evidence of adherence to accessibility standards. **Priority:** Low #### 6.2.19. REQ-019: Audit logging, immutable activity records, and configurable data retention ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V10.1** **Requirement:** Verify that applications produce sufficient, tamper-evident audit logs for security-relevant events, protect log integrity, and support configurable retention policies. **Relevance:** Directly addresses immutable logs and configurable retention for audit needs. **Integration Tips:** Use append-only storage (WORM or cloud object locking) for logs, protect log access and support configurable retention periods per policy. **Verification Method:** Inspect log storage settings, retention configurations, and tamper-evidence mechanisms. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AU-2** **Requirement:** The organization defines auditable events and the information system generates audit records for those events, protecting them from unauthorized modification. **Relevance:** Requires definition and generation of auditable events covering activity records. **Integration Tips:** Define audit event catalog, ensure events include sufficient context and secure log transport to protected stores. **Verification Method:** Event catalog review and spot-checks of generated audit records. **Priority:** High **AU-9** **Requirement:** Audit records shall be protected against unauthorized access, modification, and deletion. **Relevance:** Specifically enforces protection of logs from tampering and deletion. **Integration Tips:** Restrict access to logs, use cryptographic integrity checks, and replicate logs to an immutable store. **Verification Method:** Access control review for logs, checksum verification, and comparison across replicas. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.20. REQ-020: Security, encryption, malware scanning, data loss prevention, and incident response controls ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V5.1** **Requirement:** Verify sensitive data is protected using strong cryptography in transit and at rest, keys are managed securely, and data loss prevention measures are applied where necessary. **Relevance:** Covers encryption and DLP requirements for protecting data in the system. **Integration Tips:** Use TLS 1.2+/strong ciphers for transport, AES-256 for data at rest where required, and integrate DLP controls for sensitive document detection. **Verification Method:** Cryptography configuration reviews, key management audits, and DLP rule testing. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SI-3** **Requirement:** The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, which includes malware scanning of files and systems. **Relevance:** Mandates malware scanning for files and systems to prevent compromise via uploads or attachments. **Integration Tips:** Deploy anti-malware on endpoints and scanning in file pipelines, maintain signature updates and sandbox analysis for unknown files. **Verification Method:** Malware scan logs, update records, and sandbox analysis evidence. **Priority:** High **IR-4** **Requirement:** The organization tests incident response capabilities and maintains incident response plans to detect, respond, and recover from incidents. **Relevance:** Directly applicable to incident response planning and testing for security events affecting the platform. **Integration Tips:** Develop and exercise IR plans covering data breaches, malware events, and DLP incidents; integrate with monitoring and alerting. **Verification Method:** IR plan documentation, tabletop exercise evidence, and post-incident reviews. **Priority:** Critical ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.12.6.1** **Requirement:** Require a process to identify, assess and remedy technical vulnerabilities and to manage incidents, including DLP and malware controls. **Relevance:** Provides organizational-level controls for vulnerability and incident handling tied to malware and DLP. **Integration Tips:** Implement vulnerability management program, patching cadence, and incident handling processes aligned to ISO requirements. **Verification Method:** Vulnerability scan reports, patch records, and incident management metrics. **Priority:** High ### 6.3. Cross-Functional Security Controls The following controls apply globally across all system components: **Logging and Audit** *Description:* Centralized, tamper-evident logging for security-relevant events (authentication, authorization changes, file access, workflow transitions), timestamps, and configurable retention. *Applies to:* all requirements (authentication, RBAC, file management, workflows, notifications, integrations) *Implementation Guidance:* Use append-only storage or cloud object locking for logs, central SIEM for aggregation/analysis, protect logs with RBAC and cryptographic integrity, and implement retention policies tied to compliance. **Encryption (Transit and At-Rest)** *Description:* Use strong cryptographic protections for data in transit (TLS) and at rest (AES-256 or equivalent), including keys managed by an HSM or KMS. *Applies to:* authentication tokens, profile data, files, notifications, integrations, backups *Implementation Guidance:* Enforce TLS across endpoints, encrypt sensitive fields in databases, use managed KMS/HSM for key lifecycle, and ensure encryption configuration is regularly audited. **Access Control and Authorization** *Description:* Centralized authorization enforcement (RBAC/ABAC) with tenant/workspace awareness and least-privilege principles. *Applies to:* user accounts, files, tasks, dashboards, integrations, admin functions *Implementation Guidance:* Implement a centralized policy engine for authorization checks, require server-side enforcement for all APIs, and maintain role/permission catalogs with periodic reviews. **Secure Integration and Third-Party Management** *Description:* Contractual and technical controls for third-party integrations (OAuth scopes, token management, supplier security requirements). *Applies to:* calendar sync, email providers, DocuSign, CAT tools *Implementation Guidance:* Use least-privilege OAuth scopes, store credentials securely, include security clauses in contracts, and monitor third-party API usage and anomalies. **Malware and DLP Controls** *Description:* File scanning, sandboxing, and data loss prevention controls for uploaded documents and email attachments. *Applies to:* file upload/preview/download, document workflows, email integrations *Implementation Guidance:* Integrate AV scanners and sandboxing into file ingestion, configure DLP rules for sensitive content, and quarantine or block suspicious files. ### 6.4. Requirements Traceability Overview This section demonstrates complete traceability from high-level requirements through threats to security controls and verification methods. **Coverage Summary:** Traceability matrix contains 20 requirements. 19 requirements (95.0%) linked to threats. 20 requirements (100.0%) mapped to security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001). Coverage: Complete. #### Sample Traceability Mappings The following table shows traceability for high-priority requirements: | Req ID | Requirement | Threats | Security Controls | Standards | Priority | Verification | |--------|-------------|---------|-------------------|-----------|----------|-------------| | REQ-001 | User registration and login with email, ... | 10 threats | 3 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Review provisioning procedures, sampling of privileged accounts, and evidence of MFA enforcement and periodic access reviews. | | REQ-002 | Role-based access control (Admin, Coordi... | 8 threats | 3 controls | NIST, OWASP | Critical | Permission audits, automated checks for unused privileges, and penetration testing for privilege escalation. | | REQ-003 | User profiles capturing language pairs, ... | 10 threats | 3 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Check system security requirements documentation and traceability to implemented controls protecting profile data. | | REQ-004 | Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/au... | 0 threats | 3 controls | NIST, OWASP | Critical | Review information flow policies, test attempts to access other tenants' data, and examine enforcement logs. | | REQ-005 | Create, edit, and delete interpreting bo... | 5 threats | 3 controls | NIST, OWASP | Critical | Functional tests for authorization enforcement, IDOR tests, and business logic fuzzing. | | REQ-006 | Create translation jobs with document up... | 9 threats | 3 controls | NIST, OWASP | Critical | Review scanning integration logs, test with benign test files, and check quarantine policies. | | REQ-011 | File management: upload, preview, downlo... | 7 threats | 3 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Check malware scanning logs and sandboxing outcomes; periodic testing with EICAR/test samples. | | REQ-012 | Role- and workspace-based file and task ... | 10 threats | 3 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Access control testing across roles, attempt unauthorized file access across workspaces, and code review. | | REQ-015 | Agency financial and performance reporti... | 6 threats | 3 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Legal/compliance review and evidence of controls meeting contractual requirements. | | REQ-019 | Audit logging, immutable activity record... | 10 threats | 3 controls | NIST, OWASP | Critical | Inspect log storage settings, retention configurations, and tamper-evidence mechanisms. | *Showing 10 of 20 requirements. See Appendix D for complete traceability matrix.* #### Traceability Statistics - **Total Requirements Tracked:** 20 - **Requirements Linked to Threats:** 19 (95.0%) - **Requirements Mapped to Controls:** 20 (100.0%) - **Average Controls per Requirement:** 3.0 - **Control Distribution by Standard:** - NIST SP 800-53: 29 controls - OWASP ASVS: 20 controls - ISO 27001: 12 controls - **Verification Coverage:** 100% (all requirements have verification methods) --- ## 7. AI/ML Security Requirements This section addresses security requirements specific to artificial intelligence and machine learning components within the system. AI/ML systems introduce unique security challenges including prompt injection attacks, data poisoning, model theft, adversarial inputs, and bias vulnerabilities. This analysis identifies AI/ML components, assesses their security risks, and prescribes specialized controls to protect both the AI systems themselves and the data they process. ### 7.1. AI/ML Components Detected This section identifies all AI/ML components within the system that require specialized security controls. 1. **Automated Assignment Engine**: Utilizes machine learning algorithms to match interpreters and translators with tasks based on language pairs, availability, and certifications. 2. **Task Lifecycle Management**: Employs AI to track task progress and make recommendations for task assignments. 3. **Real-Time Updates System**: May involve AI-driven notification systems to inform users of changes in task status or new assignments. ### 7.2. AI/ML Threat Model | Component | Identified Threats | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------| | Automated Assignment Engine | - Model poisoning<br>- Data leakage through training data<br>- Adversarial inputs<br>- Prompt injection | | Task Lifecycle Management | - Input validation vulnerabilities<br>- Output filtering issues<br>- Adversarial inputs | | Real-Time Updates System | - Rate limiting and abuse potential<br>- Data leakage through notifications | ### 7.3. AI/ML Security Controls #### Automated Assignment Engine **Prompt Injection Prevention**: Implement strict input validation to prevent malicious prompts from altering task assignments. **Data Leakage Prevention**: Ensure that no personally identifiable information (PII) is included in the training data and prompt inputs. **Model Access Controls**: Limit access to the model to authorized personnel only. **Monitoring for Adversarial Inputs**: Deploy monitoring systems to detect unusual patterns in input data indicative of adversarial attacks. #### Task Lifecycle Management **Input Validation for AI Inputs**: Validate inputs rigorously to mitigate injection attacks and ensure expected formats. **Output Filtering and Sanitization**: Filter outputs to remove any sensitive information that could be exploited. **Model Versioning and Rollback Capabilities**: Maintain version control for models to allow rollback in case of identified vulnerabilities or failures. #### Real-Time Updates System **Rate Limiting and Abuse Prevention**: Implement rate limiting for notifications to prevent abuse and reduce the risk of denial-of-service attacks. **Monitoring for Adversarial Inputs**: Monitor system interactions for signs of adversarial manipulation in real-time notifications. ### 7.4. Integration with Existing Security Controls The AI/ML security controls integrate with standard security practices by enhancing existing frameworks like access control, input validation, and incident response. AI-specific controls such as monitoring for adversarial inputs complement traditional cybersecurity measures, ensuring a holistic security posture that protects both AI components and the overall application. ### 7.5. AI/ML Monitoring Requirements | Monitoring Area | Description | |----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | Input Validation Monitoring | Track invalid input attempts to prevent injection attacks. | | Output Monitoring | Analyze output for sensitive data leaks or anomalies. | | Adversarial Input Detection | Employ anomaly detection algorithms to identify adversarial patterns in inputs. | | Access Control Logging | Maintain logs of model access attempts and changes to ensure compliance and traceability. | --- ## 8. Compliance Requirements This section identifies regulatory and legal compliance obligations applicable to the system based on data types, geographic scope, industry sector, and business operations. Compliance requirements drive specific security controls, data handling procedures, audit capabilities, and privacy protections. Non-compliance can result in significant legal penalties, reputational damage, and business disruption. This analysis maps applicable regulations to specific security requirements and operational procedures. ### 8.1. Applicable Regulations The compliance requirements for the Interpreter & Translator Service Management Application were identified based on the types of data processed (such as personal, health, and financial data), the geographic scope (focusing on EU, US, and other regions), and the specific operations involved (government collaboration and service provision). Given the multifaceted nature of the application, which handles sensitive data across various contexts, multiple regulations apply. Compliance requirements directly influence security controls, data handling procedures, and operational processes to ensure that the application adheres to legal standards. | Regulation | Applicability Reason | |------------|----------------------| | GDPR | Applies because the system processes personal data of EU residents, including user profiles and communication. | | CCPA | Applies due to the potential handling of personal data of California residents, granting them specific privacy rights. | | HIPAA | Applies if any health-related information is processed, especially in the context of interpreter services for healthcare providers. | | PCI-DSS | Applies if payment card information is handled, particularly for any financial transactions related to service bookings. | | SOX | Applies for financial reporting and auditing requirements related to government agency budgets and expenditures. | | COPPA | May apply if any data is collected from children under 13, particularly in user registrations. | | Data residency laws | Applies as the application may need to comply with location-specific data storage and processing laws. | ### 8.2. Compliance Controls by Regulation #### GDPR - Implement data encryption for personal data in transit and at rest. - Establish a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) process for new features. - Ensure user consent mechanisms are in place for data processing. - Enable users to access and delete their personal data upon request. #### CCPA - Provide a clear privacy notice at or before data collection. - Allow consumers to opt-out of the sale of personal data. - Implement procedures for verifying consumer requests for data access and deletion. #### HIPAA - Ensure that only authorized personnel can access health-related data. - Implement audit controls to track access and modifications to health information. - Provide training for employees on HIPAA compliance and data handling. #### PCI-DSS - Utilize secure payment processing solutions that comply with PCI-DSS standards. - Implement strong access control measures for payment data handling. - Regularly test security systems and processes for vulnerabilities. #### SOX - Maintain accurate financial records and ensure their integrity through proper access controls. - Conduct regular internal audits to assess compliance with financial reporting requirements. #### COPPA - Obtain parental consent before collecting personal data from children under 13. - Provide clear privacy notices outlining data collection practices for minors. #### Data residency laws - Ensure data storage solutions comply with local regulations regarding data residency. - Implement geographical access controls to restrict data processing based on location. ### 8.3. Data Subject Rights | Right | Description | |-------|-------------| | Right to Access | Users can request access to their personal data held by the application. | | Right to Rectification | Users can request corrections to inaccurate personal data. | | Right to Deletion | Users can request the deletion of their personal data under certain conditions. | | Right to Data Portability | Users can request their data in a structured, commonly used format. | | Right to Object | Users can object to the processing of their personal data for specific purposes. | ### 8.4. Privacy Requirements **Consent:** Users must provide explicit consent prior to data collection, particularly for sensitive information. **Privacy Notice:** A detailed privacy notice must be provided to users outlining data processing activities, rights, and contact information for inquiries. ### 8.5. Audit and Monitoring Requirements **Logging:** Maintain comprehensive logs of user access and modifications to data, ensuring they are immutable and regularly reviewed. **Audit Trails:** Implement audit trails to track changes in the application, particularly for sensitive data and financial transactions. ### 8.6. Data Handling Rules **Retention:** Personal data should be retained only as long as necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, with defined retention periods for different data types. **Deletion:** Procedures must be established to ensure secure deletion of personal data upon user request or after the retention period has expired. ### 8.7. Compliance Risk Assessment The compliance landscape for this application is multifaceted, with various risks associated with the handling of sensitive data. Regular assessments should be conducted to identify and mitigate potential compliance risks. **Key Compliance Risks:** - Risk of unauthorized access to personal data due to insufficient security controls. - Risk of non-compliance with GDPR, CCPA, and HIPAA due to inadequate user consent mechanisms. - Risk of data breaches resulting from inadequate incident response protocols and lack of encryption. --- ## 9. Security Architecture Recommendations This section provides comprehensive security architecture guidance that integrates security controls into the system's technical design. Security architecture defines how security principles, controls, and patterns are applied across system components to create a cohesive, defense-in-depth security posture. The recommendations address architectural principles, component-level controls, data protection strategies, and third-party integration security to ensure security is built into the system design. ### 9.1. Architectural Security Principles Architectural security principles provide the foundational philosophy guiding all security design decisions. These principles ensure a consistent security posture across all system components, guide trade-offs, and determine which controls are applied where to protect sensitive government data, enforce compliance, and maintain operational resilience. - **Zero Trust Architecture principles**: Never trust, always verify. All access requests (users, services, devices) must be authenticated and authorized, and trust must be continuously evaluated based on identity, device posture, context, and least privilege to limit lateral movement and data exposure. - **Defense in Depth**: Multiple independent layers of controls (network, edge, application, data, identity) so that failure or compromise of one control does not result in full system compromise; layers provide overlapping protections and detection opportunities. - **Principle of Least Privilege**: Grant users, services, and integrations only the minimum permissions and scope needed to perform their tasks; reduce blast radius and attack surface by scoping roles, API scopes, and resource access tightly. - **Secure by Default / Secure by Design**: Systems and components are deployed with conservative secure defaults (e.g., secure TLS, no public credentials, strong cipher suites) and security is considered throughout the design, development, and deployment lifecycle. - **Separation of Duties**: Critical workflows (e.g., approval of high-risk bookings, role provisioning, financial report exports) require distinct roles and approvals to prevent fraud, mistake, or privilege abuse. - **Fail Secure / Fail Closed**: On failures (e.g., authentication provider unreachable, degraded service), default to denying access or reducing capability rather than allowing insecure fallbacks; degrade gracefully while preserving confidentiality and integrity. - **Complete Mediation**: Enforce authorization on every access attempt and every resource, at every call, rather than trusting prior checks or client-side enforcement (deny-by-default). - **Assume Breach / Resilience**: Design for detection, containment, and rapid recovery; assume adversaries may bypass preventive controls and plan monitoring, segmentation, and incident response accordingly. - **Privacy by Design & Data Minimization**: Collect and persist only the data necessary for business function; protect PII and vetting data with stronger controls and explainability for automated decisions. - **Auditability & Tamper-Evidence**: Ensure all security-relevant events are logged with tamper-evident mechanisms, timestamps, and sufficient context to support forensics and compliance. - **Trusted Supply Chain & Secure Integrations**: Treat third-party services and libraries as part of the security boundary — enforce contractual requirements, vet suppliers, and isolate integrations with least-privilege and hardened connectors. ### 9.2. Component-Level Security Controls #### Frontend User Interface **Required Controls:** - Enforce TLS (TLS 1.2+) for all client-server traffic and use HSTS - Strict Content Security Policy (CSP) to mitigate XSS - Client-side input validation complemented by server-side validation - Secure session handling (short-lived tokens, refresh tokens with rotation, secure cookies with SameSite/HttpOnly) - Accessibility and localization input encoding to prevent injection via i18n - Sanitize file preview streams and render in secure sandboxed viewers - CSP, SRI for third-party scripts and strict dependency vetting - Client telemetry/logging of suspicious user flows (privacy-aware) **Recommended Patterns:** - Serve SPA via CDN with WAF in front to block common attacks - Use OAuth/OIDC + SSO via Identity service and short-lived access tokens - Token storage using in-memory or secure HTTP-only cookies (avoid localStorage for tokens) - Progressive enhancement with graceful degradation when security controls block unsafe content - Integrate Content Security Policy and Subresource Integrity (SRI) - Use feature flags and controlled rollouts for UI changes #### Edge & API Gateway **Required Controls:** - TLS termination and HTTP Strict Transport Security - Web Application Firewall (WAF) with OWASP ruleset and custom rules for business logic abuse - Rate limiting, per-tenant quotas, and bot detection - Edge authentication enforcement (JWT/OAuth introspection) and tenant-awareness - IP allowlisting for administrative or integration endpoints (where applicable) - Edge TLS mutual authentication (mTLS) for partner service endpoints - Edge logging with redaction of PII and injection to SIEM - Request validation and payload size limits **Recommended Patterns:** - API Gateway for unified auth, routing, throttling, and enterprise-grade observability - Use API keys for machine-to-machine but prefer OAuth2 client credentials for external integrations - Edge WAF + DDoS protection (cloud-managed scrubbing) and failover endpoints - Centralized API policy engine for scope-based authorization and per-tenant routing #### Application Services **Required Controls:** - Centralized identity and access management integration (OIDC/SAML) and MFA enforcement - Server-side RBAC/ABAC checks with tenant/workspace context on every API - Input validation, output encoding, and strong parameterized DB queries to prevent injection - Secure secrets handling (KMS-backed secrets management) - Business-logic anti-abuse controls (rate limits, anomaly detection) for assignment engine - Immutable audit events emission for security-relevant actions - Service-to-service authentication (mTLS or short-lived OAuth tokens) and mutual authorization - Enforce configurable workflow guards and state transition validation **Recommended Patterns:** - Microservices or modular service boundaries with service mesh for mTLS and policy enforcement - Authorization service/policy engine (OPA, AWS IAM policies, or similar) for centralized RBAC/ABAC - Circuit breakers, retries with jitter, and backpressure controls in background/processing flows - Use token introspection for verifying user/session context at service entry points #### Data Storage **Required Controls:** - Encryption at rest with KMS-managed keys and envelope encryption for files and DB - Field-level encryption for sensitive PII, vetting/certification attributes, and financial data - Tenant-aware data partitioning (logical schema separation and row-level tenancy IDs) - Access controls and database auditing for reads/writes of sensitive tables - Backups encrypted and stored with appropriate separation and retention controls - Database activity monitoring and anomaly detection - Strong DB credentials rotation and least-privilege DB access patterns **Recommended Patterns:** - Encrypted relational DB with Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) + column-level encryption for high-sensitivity fields - Object storage for files with server-side encryption (SSE-KMS) and short-lived signed URLs for downloads/previews - Immutable audit/log store using WORM/Cloud Object Lock for audit retention - Use separate logical databases or schemas per major tenant/agency for stronger isolation where required #### Background & Queue Services **Required Controls:** - Message queue encryption in transit and at rest, with scoped access policies - Strict validation of job payloads and avoid embedding sensitive data in queue messages (use references/IDs) - Processing nodes run with minimal privileges and ephemeral credentials (short-lived) - Job integrity verification (signatures/checksums) before processing files - Sandbox and quarantine workflow integration for scanned files - Retry/backoff policies, dead-letter queues, and monitoring for processing anomalies **Recommended Patterns:** - Use cloud-managed message queues with IAM-based access control and encryption - Worker pools behind autoscaling groups with least-privilege instance profiles - Use sidecar or centralized scanning service to offload malware/sandboxing before publish - Use idempotent job design and stateful orchestration (workflow engine like Temporal/Step Functions) #### Integrations & External Services **Required Controls:** - Secure OAuth flows (Authorization Code with PKCE for delegated flows) and client credentials for M2M - Least-privilege scopes and token rotation + revocation support - Secure storage of integration secrets (KMS/HSM-backed secrets manager) - Input/output validation and strict schema enforcement for data received from external services - Monitoring, alerting, and baseline profiling of integration usage **Recommended Patterns:** - Use integration gateway/proxy to centralize outgoing API calls, rate limiting, and credential management - Apply service isolation for third-party connectors and apply API contracts/stubs for testing - Use signed webhook tokens and request validation (HMAC signatures) for inbound webhooks #### Observability & Audit **Required Controls:** - Centralized logging to an immutable/tamper-evident log store with role-restricted access - Structured logs with consistent context (tenant ID, user ID, request ID) and timezone-aware timestamps - Audit events for authentication/authorization changes, file access, workflow transitions, and exports - SIEM integration for correlation, alerting, and threat hunting - Log integrity controls (hash chains or signed log ingestion) and cross-region replication **Recommended Patterns:** - Push logs via secure log-forwarder to SIEM and long-term WORM-enabled storage - Use tracing (distributed context propagation) for performance and security incident triage - Automated retention and legal-hold capability, with exportable audit packages for compliance ### 9.3. Data Protection Strategy **Data Classification:** Public, Internal, Confidential, Restricted - Public: Non-sensitive UI text, marketing or publicly accessible status pages. - Internal: Operational metadata, non-identifying telemetry and non-sensitive configuration. - Confidential: User PII (name, email), interpreter/translator profiles, language pairs, availability. - Restricted: Vetting/certification status, government-sensitive documents, financial spend per agency, signed documents, audit logs (where policy requires immutability). **Encryption Requirements:** - Transport: TLS 1.3 preferred, TLS 1.2 minimum with strong cipher suites (AEAD ciphers e.g., TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384). Enforce HSTS and modern TLS settings; disable legacy TLS/SSL and weak ciphers. - Data at rest: - Use AES-256-GCM for block encryption of storage volumes and object stores. - Use TDE for relational databases and envelope encryption with KMS-managed keys for columns containing Confidential/Restricted fields. - Field-level encryption for Restricted fields using client or server-side encryption based on use-case (e.g., vetting documents). - Keys and algorithms: - Asymmetric keys: RSA 3072+ or ECC P-384 for signing and key exchange where needed. - Symmetric keys: AES-256-GCM for encryption, HMAC-SHA256 or SHA-384 for integrity where required. - Use KMS/HSM for key lifecycle management, key rotation at least annually (or per policy), and support for key versioning and destruction policies. - Token and secrets: - Short-lived access tokens (minutes to hours), refresh tokens stored securely and rotated. - Secrets and API keys stored in KMS-backed secrets manager; do not embed in code. **Retention Policies:** - Audit logs: Retain initial immutable copies for a minimum period required by law (e.g., 7 years for government contexts — align with agency policy); provide WORM and legal hold capability. - User profiles (PII): Retain while account active and for a configurable grace period (e.g., 1 year) after account deletion unless legal hold applies. - Uploaded documents: Retain per agency policy and classification; default retention e.g., Confidential: 2 years, Restricted: 7 years, adjustable per agency contract. - Backups: Retain according to recovery and compliance needs (e.g., daily backups retained 30 days, monthly retained 1 year), encrypted and access-controlled. - Deletion: Support secure deletion and cryptographic erasure; maintain an auditable deletion workflow including soft-delete and final purge with retention windows. **Handling Procedures:** - Access: - Enforce least-privilege via centralized authorization engine that evaluates role, tenant, and attributes. - Log and alert on anomalous access patterns (e.g., bulk exports, cross-tenant access attempts). - Transmission: - Always use TLS for inter-service and external communications; use mTLS for partner connections where possible. - Minimize sensitive data in message buses; reference objects rather than embedding full payloads. - Storage: - Store documents in object storage with SSE-KMS and per-object metadata including checksum and version. - Use signed, short-lived URLs for downloads/previews (minimum TTL and single-use for high sensitivity). - Deletion and Disposal: - Implement soft-delete with retention windows and an irreversible purge workflow; for encrypted content, use key destruction for crypto-erase where acceptable. - Maintain deletion audit trails and support legal hold overrides. - Data Minimization: - Avoid unnecessary replication of Restricted data into analytics stores; use aggregated or redacted datasets for reporting. - DLP and Malware: - Scan all uploads with AV and sandboxing; apply DLP scanning for sensitive patterns (e.g., national IDs, classified terms) and enforce quarantine/blocking workflows. - Key Management: - Enforce KMS/HSM-based key lifecycle with role separation for key administration. - All keys have defined rotation and retirement procedures and audit logs for key operations. ### 9.4. Third-Party Integration Security **Agency Identity Providers (SAML/OIDC)** *Security Requirements:* - Use federated SSO via SAML2 or OIDC with signed assertions and robust assertion validation - Enforce MFA at IdP level for access to privileged or sensitive agency workspaces - Validate and pin IdP metadata and certificates; support metadata refresh with secure validation - Support SCIM or provisioning API for lifecycle integration where needed - Audit federation events and support token revocation and session termination *Risk Assessment:* High - Identity federation is critical; compromise or misconfiguration could allow unauthorized access across agencies. *Recommended Controls:* - Require IdP metadata verification and certificate pinning - Use short-lived tokens and perform token introspection at API gateway - Implement JIT provisioning with approval workflows and periodic account reconciliation - Enforce per-tenant trust relationships and restrict IdP scopes to necessary attributes - Monitor and alert for unusual federation events (e.g., unexpected user provisioning) **Email Provider (Transactional Email)** *Security Requirements:* - Use authenticated SMTP or API with strong API keys or OAuth - Enforce SPF, DKIM, and DMARC for outgoing mail domains - Minimal sensitive data in email content; use links pointing to authenticated application rather than content - Support bounce handling and signed webhooks for provider callbacks *Risk Assessment:* Medium to High - Potential for data leakage or spoofing; abused for phishing and impersonation. *Recommended Controls:* - Enforce SPF/DKIM/DMARC and monitor domain reputation - Use templating engine with redaction for sensitive info - Securely store email provider credentials and rotate periodically - Monitor outbound email volumes and anomalous patterns; rate-limit notifications **SMS Provider** *Security Requirements:* - Use API keys or OAuth for provider access stored in secrets manager - Avoid sending sensitive details over SMS (use OTP references or secure link) - Support opt-in/opt-out and consent management *Risk Assessment:* Medium - SMS is inherently less secure; risk of SIM-swap or interception for OTP usage. *Recommended Controls:* - Use SMS only for low-sensitivity alerts or second-factor with backup MFA options - Throttle SMS sending and monitor for abnormal usage - Require providers to have contractual SLAs and data handling policies **Outlook / Microsoft Teams Calendar (Microsoft Graph API)** *Security Requirements:* - Use OAuth2 Authorization Code with least-privilege scopes and incremental consent - Use per-tenant delegated access or application permissions limited in scope - Support token refresh and revocation; store tokens securely - Follow Microsoft guidance for app consent and admin consent flows *Risk Assessment:* High - Calendar sync can leak scheduling/location/participant PII across systems. *Recommended Controls:* - Limit scopes to calendar.* rather than mail.* and request lowest privileges necessary - Use consent and admin-approval flows; implement per-agency tenant consent boundaries - Rate limit sync operations and implement backoff; log calendar events access - Validate calendar data and sanitize before rendering or exporting **DocuSign (E-signatures)** *Security Requirements:* - Use OAuth2 integration with minimal scopes - Ensure secure storage and transit of signed documents; apply integrity checks - Support webhook verification (HMAC signatures) and secure callback endpoints *Risk Assessment:* High - Signed documents are sensitive and may have legal implications; interceptions or tampering are severe. *Recommended Controls:* - Use signed webhooks with signature verification - Store e-signature artifacts in encrypted object storage and maintain chain-of-custody metadata - Implement workflow guards for signature requests and require multi-party approval for signature operations - Limit sharing of signed documents; watermark exports and log downloads **CAT Tool Integrations (Optional translation tools)** *Security Requirements:* - Use OAuth2 or API keys scoped to required assets; enforce least-privilege - Protect translation assets and metadata; avoid automatic export of PII to external CAT tools unless contractually permitted - Ensure secure transfer and storage during CAT workflows *Risk Assessment:* Medium - Translation assets may contain sensitive PII or government content; third-party processing risk. *Recommended Controls:* - Contractual controls: data handling, retention, and non-disclosure with vendor - Use encrypted channels and transient export of content; prefer in-house processing or vetted vendors - Apply DLP scans before sending content to CAT tools; redact or tokenize PII where possible **Malware Scanning / Sandboxing Service** *Security Requirements:* - Use API with authenticated, auditable requests - Ensure file uploads to sandbox preserve privacy and use isolated environments - Keep signature/heuristic engines updated and support callback/webhook verification *Risk Assessment:* Medium - Essential for preventing malware, but sandbox false negatives or leaks could cause exposure. *Recommended Controls:* - Integrate scanning as mandatory pre-publication step with quarantine workflows - Send only necessary file bytes or encrypted containers; maintain chain-of-custody metadata - Monitor scan performance and maintain fallback manual review for high-risk files **Video Conferencing / Virtual Meeting Providers (e.g., Teams, Zoom)** *Security Requirements:* - Use meet invite creation via calendar API with unique meeting links and restricted access options - Enforce meeting lobby, passcodes, or tenant federation policies as applicable - Avoid embedding sensitive document content in meeting invites *Risk Assessment:* Medium - Meeting links and invites can leak scheduling and PII; misconfigured meetings can allow disruption or eavesdropping. *Recommended Controls:* - Create meetings via API with minimum privileges and enforce attendee lists - Rotate meeting join tokens and avoid public-facing meeting links for restricted bookings - Provide guidance and defaults for secure meeting configuration (waiting rooms, password protection) **Webhooks and Incoming Callbacks** *Security Requirements:* - Require signed webhook payloads (HMAC) and timestamp/nonce validation - Use TLS with certificate validation and IP allowlisting for provider endpoints if available - Authenticate with mutual TLS for high-risk callbacks *Risk Assessment:* High - Unsigned or unauthenticated callbacks can be forged to manipulate workflows or spoof events. *Recommended Controls:* - Verify signatures and timestamps; reject replayed events - Run webhook payloads through validation and schema checks - Log and alert on unexpected webhook patterns and replays ### 9.5. Cross-Cutting Controls and How Elements Work Together - Centralized Identity & Authorization: All components use a single authoritative Identity Service and Authorization Policy Engine (RBAC/ABAC) to ensure consistent enforcement. API Gateway enforces authentication and forwards context to services which then perform fine-grained authorization checks. - Data Flow & Minimization: Sensitive data stays encrypted at rest and in transit, and long-term analytics stores receive aggregated or tokenized datasets only. The assignment engine operates on references and minimized attributes; sensitive fields are decrypted only in controlled service contexts. - Defense-in-Depth: CDN/WAF at edge, API Gateway for request validation and rate limiting, microservice boundaries and service mesh for mTLS, database encryption, and immutable audit logs for tamper evidence. - Integration Gateway: All external integrations flow through a hardened integration gateway/proxy that centralizes credential management, rate limiting, payload sanitization, and observability, reducing direct exposure of internal services. - Observability & IR: Central SIEM aggregates logs, alerting, and forensic search. Ensure runbooks and regular tabletop exercises for incidents (data breach, malware detection, credential compromise). All log sources produce cryptographically-protected audit records in immutable storage. - Tenant Isolation: Tenant IDs propagated through entire request path; access control enforced at API, service, and storage layers. Consider per-tenant DB schemas or strong row-level policies for stricter separation, supplemented by network segmentation for agency-specific deployments where required. - Change & Configuration Management: Treat workflow configurations and role mappings as code, review via PRs, and require approvals; changes are audited and subject to rollback. - Secure SDLC: Threat modeling, SAST/DAST, dependency scanning, and release gating for critical components. Pen testing and multi-tenant penetration tests prior to production. ### 9.6. Operational & Governance Recommendations - Implement a risk-based classification and routinely review retention/handling policies with agency stakeholders. - Maintain supplier security assessments, contractual SLAs, and the right to audit for all third-party providers that process Restricted or Confidential data. - Enforce periodic access reviews for privileged roles and service accounts. - Provide agency-level admin dashboards to manage tenant-specific policies, export controls, and legal holds. - Establish incident response lines with agency contacts and require notification SLAs. - Run regular tabletop exercises covering malware in uploaded documents, credential compromise, and cross-tenant data access scenarios. ### 9.7. Summary of Recommended Architectural Patterns (quick reference) - API Gateway (OAuth2/OIDC) + WAF + CDN - Identity Service with SSO (SAML/OIDC), MFA, and SCIM provisioning - Central Authorization Policy Engine (OPA or equivalent) - Microservices with service mesh for mTLS and observability - Encrypted RDBMS (TDE) + column/field-level encryption - Object Storage with SSE-KMS and short-lived signed URLs - Immutable log store (WORM) and SIEM integration - Integration Gateway for third-party connectors - Malware scanning + sandbox pipeline for file ingestion - Workflow orchestration (Temporal/Step Functions) for durable and auditable state transitions This architecture and applied controls implement Zero Trust and defense-in-depth principles to protect sensitive government data, provide tenant separation and auditability, and enable secure integrations required by the interpreter & translator service management application. --- ## 10. Implementation Roadmap This section provides a prioritized, phased approach for implementing the security controls identified throughout this analysis. The roadmap organizes security measures into logical phases based on risk, dependencies, and resource availability, ensuring critical security gaps are addressed first while building a foundation for comprehensive security coverage. ### 10.1. Prioritization Framework Prioritization is critical for effective security implementation because it ensures that the most critical vulnerabilities and compliance requirements are addressed first, minimizing potential risks and protecting sensitive data. By organizing security controls into a phased implementation plan, organizations can allocate resources efficiently, address dependencies, and achieve compliance in a timely manner. The following criteria were used to prioritize the implementation of security controls: **Prioritization Criteria:** - **Risk Level**: Controls addressing critical and high-risk threats (identified through threat modeling) are prioritized first - **Compliance Deadlines**: Regulatory requirements and compliance deadlines influence immediate priority - **Technical Complexity**: Controls requiring foundational infrastructure are implemented early to enable subsequent controls - **Dependencies**: Controls that other security measures depend upon are prioritized accordingly - **Resource Availability**: Implementation considers the availability of skilled personnel, tools, and budget - **Business Impact**: Controls protecting business-critical functions and data receive higher priority These criteria work together to create a logical implementation sequence that balances security needs with practical constraints, ensuring that critical vulnerabilities are addressed promptly while maintaining operational efficiency. ### 10.2. Phased Implementation Plan #### Phase: IMMEDIATE **Timeline:** 0-1 months **Rationale:** Address critical vulnerabilities and compliance blockers to mitigate high-risk threats and ensure regulatory adherence. **Controls to Implement:** - Enforce Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for all users, especially administrative and agency accounts - Implement basic encryption for sensitive data in transit and at rest - Secure SSO configurations with strict audience, issuer, and certificate validation - Conduct an initial Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for compliance with GDPR **Dependencies:** - None #### Phase: SHORT-TERM **Timeline:** 1-3 months **Rationale:** Enhance access control and security monitoring capabilities to build on immediate controls and improve overall security posture. **Controls to Implement:** - Enhance user authentication through comprehensive multi-factor authentication - Deploy role-based access controls across the admin dashboard - Implement comprehensive logging and monitoring for all administrative actions - Strengthen API security with input validation and HTTPS protocols - Begin encryption for all sensitive data at rest **Dependencies:** - Completion of TLS Implementation - Completion of multi-factor authentication #### Phase: MEDIUM-TERM **Timeline:** 3-6 months **Rationale:** Focus on advanced threat detection and testing to identify and mitigate emerging risks, while ensuring third-party integrations are secure. **Controls to Implement:** - Deploy advanced threat detection systems - Automate security testing (SAST/DAST) and vulnerability scanning - Conduct third-party security audits for integrations (e.g., DocuSign, calendar services) - Enhance data protection measures, including encryption key management and DLP **Dependencies:** - Completion of comprehensive logging and monitoring - Completion of API security enhancements #### Phase: LONG-TERM **Timeline:** 6-12 months **Rationale:** Implement strategic security initiatives and continuous improvement practices to mature the security program. **Controls to Implement:** - Develop and implement a security maturity model for continuous improvement - Deploy advanced AI/ML security controls for anomaly detection - Conduct comprehensive penetration testing for ongoing security validation - Launch security awareness and training programs for staff **Dependencies:** - Completion of threat detection systems - Completion of security testing automation #### Phase: ONGOING **Timeline:** Continuous **Rationale:** Maintain continuous security operations to ensure ongoing protection and compliance. **Controls to Implement:** - Continuous security monitoring and incident response readiness - Regular patch management and vulnerability remediation - Conduct periodic compliance audits and risk assessments - Maintain up-to-date security policies and procedures **Dependencies:** - None ### 10.3. Resource Requirements Skills required for successful implementation include Security Engineers for technical control implementation, Security Architects for designing secure architectures, Web Developers for integrating security into application development, and Compliance Specialists for regulatory adherence. Recommended tools include SIEM solutions for centralized logging and monitoring, vulnerability scanners for identifying and mitigating security gaps, encryption libraries for data protection, and API management tools for securing interfaces. Estimated time effort is approximately 3-6 months for initial phases, with ongoing efforts extending resources as per system complexity and requirements. --- ## 11. Verification and Testing Strategy ### 11.1. Testing Approach Integrate security testing throughout the software development lifecycle (SDLC) with an emphasis on continuous security practices. Balance automated scanning with manual evaluations to prioritize high-risk areas based on business impact, adhering to shift-left security principles by incorporating security testing earlier and continuously. This approach ensures that vulnerabilities are identified and remediated promptly, thereby reducing overall risk and enhancing compliance with regulatory requirements. ### 11.2. Testing Methods | Method | Frequency | Tools | |--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------| | STATIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (SAST) | Every commit/build | SonarQube, Semgrep, Checkmarx, CodeQL | | DYNAMIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (DAST) | Nightly/weekly | OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite, Acunetix | | DEPENDENCY SCANNING | Every build | Snyk, Dependabot, OWASP Dependency-Check | | SECRETS SCANNING | Every commit | TruffleHog, GitLeaks, GitHub Secret Scanning | | CONTAINER/INFRASTRUCTURE SCANNING | Every deployment | Trivy, Clair, Prowler, ScoutSuite | | PENETRATION TESTING | Quarterly or before major releases | Custom scripts, Metasploit, Burp Suite Pro | | SECURITY CODE REVIEW | For critical features | GitHub/GitLab code review, Security checklists | | COMPLIANCE SCANNING | Continuous | AWS Config, Azure Policy, Cloud Custodian | ### 11.3. Compliance Verification Multi-standard compliance (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) will be verified through automated tools and manual checks against regulatory requirements such as GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS. Audit preparation will involve ensuring documentation and evidence collection for external audits, specifically focusing on the controls implemented for each regulation. Recommendations will include engaging third-party auditors for comprehensive evaluations, ensuring that all security controls meet the necessary compliance standards. ### 11.4. Continuous Monitoring Implement Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) for real-time monitoring, supported by Intrusion Detection/Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS) to identify and mitigate threats. All logs will be aggregated and analyzed for anomalies, with integration into incident response processes to ensure prompt action against security events. Continuous monitoring will help maintain awareness of security posture and facilitate rapid response to any detected incidents. ### 11.5. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) - Mean time to detect (MTTD) security issues - Mean time to remediate (MTTR) vulnerabilities - Percentage of critical vulnerabilities patched within SLA - Security test coverage percentage - False positive rate in automated scanning - Compliance audit pass rate --- ## 12. Validation Report This section presents a comprehensive validation of the security requirements generated throughout this analysis. The validation evaluates the requirements against five key dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. This assessment ensures that the security requirements are comprehensive, technically sound, and actionable for implementation teams. ### 12.1. Overall Assessment The overall validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five critical dimensions. Each dimension is scored from 0.0 to 1.0, with 1.0 representing excellent coverage and 0.0 indicating significant gaps. **Overall Score:** 0.88/1.0 **Validation Status:** ✅ PASSED The security requirements have met the quality threshold (≥0.8) and are ready for implementation. The requirements demonstrate comprehensive coverage, technical accuracy, and alignment with business objectives. The validation assesses: - **Completeness**: Are all identified security concerns adequately addressed? - **Consistency**: Do requirements align with each other without contradictions? - **Correctness**: Are controls appropriate for the identified risks and correctly applied? - **Implementability**: Are requirements specific, actionable, and feasible to implement? - **Alignment**: Do security requirements align with business requirements and objectives? ### 12.2. Dimension Scores | Dimension | Score | Status | |-----------|-------|--------| | Completeness | 0.86 | ✅ | | Consistency | 0.95 | ✅ | | Correctness | 0.90 | ✅ | | Implementability | 0.78 | ⚠️ | | Alignment | 0.92 | ✅ | **Score Interpretation:** - ✅ 0.8-1.0: Excellent - ⚠️ 0.7-0.79: Acceptable (minor improvements needed) - ❌ <0.7: Needs significant improvement ### 12.3. Detailed Feedback Summary: The provided security requirements and mapping to standards (OWASP, NIST, ISO27001) cover most critical security domains for a multi-tenant government-facing interpreter/translator booking platform. Strengths include robust coverage of authentication/MFA, RBAC/tenant isolation, file handling/malware scanning, audit logging, encryption, third-party integration controls, and initial AI/ML-specific controls. The current set is consistent and aligns well with the business needs, but several gaps and areas of ambiguity remain that will hinder precise implementation and verification unless addressed. High-priority actionable improvements (implement before development or earliest sprint): 1) Session & Authentication specifics: add explicit requirements for session lifetime, refresh-token rotation and revocation, brute-force protections (e.g., rate-limit attempts, account lockout after N failed attempts), single logout (SSO SLO), and password policy (or delegated to IdP). Specify accepted token formats/algorithms (e.g., JWT RS256) and secure cookie attributes (HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite). 2) Identity provisioning and lifecycle: require SCIM or automated provisioning/deprovisioning for SSO integrations, periodic account access reviews, emergency break-glass access controls with logged approvals, and vetting proof artifacts retention rules. 3) Secrets & key management: specify use of managed KMS/HSM for keys, key rotation schedule (e.g., 90 days for symmetric; annual for master keys), separation of encryption keys per tenant for data residency isolation, and rules for credential storage (no secrets in code or repo). 4) API & integration security: add explicit API security controls — API gateway, rate-limiting, mutual TLS or signed webhooks, OAuth scope-minimization, token revocation endpoint tests, and webhook signature verification. Define least-privilege scopes per integration (Teams/Outlook, DocuSign, CAT tools). 5) Data residency, classification and retention details: map data classes to retention periods and storage locations (e.g., audit logs WORM for X years), specify per-country residency requirements and enforcement (region-specific KMS, geo-fencing), and document retention/deletion workflows (pseudonymization before deletion when required). 6) Logging & monitoring operationalization: specify SIEM ingestion format, log retention periods per regulation (e.g., 7 years for government finance), log access controls, integrity checks (e.g., HMAC or signed log entries), alerting thresholds, and responsibilities for log review cadence. 7) Secure file previewing and rendering: require sandboxed preview rendering (no direct execution of uploaded content), HTML sanitization for document previews, content-disposition handling, and limits for file types/sizes. Define quarantine/workflow for suspicious files and proof-of-concept EICAR tests frequency. 8) Vulnerability and supply-chain controls: require SAST/DAST in CI/CD, software composition analysis (SCA) for dependencies, regular dependency patching cadence, signed builds, and contractual security requirements + security assessment rights for third-party suppliers (DocuSign, CAT vendors). Include pen-test cadence (annual + major release) and bug-bounty consideration. 9) Privacy & regulatory specifics: add requirement for DPIA before production of high-risk features, consent capture and audit trail for GDPR/CCPA, data subject request handling SLA (e.g., respond within 30 days), BAA requirement for HIPAA-covered data processors, and PCI scope minimization (do not store PAN; use hosted/redirect payment flows). Document proof/artefacts required for audits. 10) AI/ML governance and robustness: expand ML controls into a full model governance policy: training data lineage and access controls, privacy-preserving techniques (e.g., differential privacy or PII filtering), fairness/bias testing and thresholds, adversarial robustness testing, model explainability logs for each automated assignment, retraining/change management with validation and rollback procedures, continuous monitoring for drift and anomalous behavior, and role-based access to model artifacts. Clarify whether assignment engine uses LLMs or classical ML and adapt controls accordingly. Medium-priority actionable clarifications (for next planning/acceptance criteria): - Granular RBAC/ABAC matrix: provide a role-permission matrix and examples of workspace/tenant cross-access scenarios for QA tests. Define separation-of-duty rules (who can approve payments or release deliverables). - Export/watermarking: require watermarking/tracking (user-id, timestamp) on exported PDFs/CSV that contain sensitive info; include revocation/audit trail for exports. - Backup and recovery: require encrypted backups, backup retention policy, restore test cadence, and RTO/RPO targets for critical services. - Availability & DoS: document SLA targets and DDoS protections, rate-limiting policies per endpoint (real-time channels, APIs). - Operational runbooks: incident response runbooks tailored to key scenarios (data breach, malware in uploads, model poisoning), and incident tabletop schedule. Developer-actionable examples (concrete controls you can add to requirements): - Require MFA (TOTP or FIDO2) for all users; require MFA for privileged roles always. (Verifiable via account sample.) - Enforce access token TTL <= 1 hour, refresh token rotation with revocation, and maximum refresh token lifetime of 30 days. - Lock account after 5 failed attempts for 15 minutes; notify user and admin on lockout. - All uploaded files previewed in isolated container/sandbox; file previews disabled for quarantined files. - All logs are written to an append-only store and replicated to a separate immutable cloud bucket; cryptographic checksums performed daily. - SSO integrations require SCIM for user provisioning and OAuth2 authorization code flow with PKCE where applicable. - ML models: maintain metadata for training data, model checksum, last-train date, performance/fairness metrics; require manual sign-off for production model changes. Verification advice for QA and auditors: - Create test suites: IDOR tests across tenants, role-permission matrix tests, SSO provisioning/deprovisioning tests, webhook signature verification tests, malware upload EICAR and sandboxing tests, export redaction tests, and ML adversarial input test cases. - Require evidence artifacts: DPIA, BAA/contract excerpts, key rotation logs, SIEM alerts, pen-test reports, model validation reports. If you want, I can convert the above improvements into: (A) prioritized backlog items with acceptance criteria for developers and QA, (B) a checklist with test cases for each major control, or (C) a tightened, implementable security requirements document that replaces high-level language with concrete, testable requirements. --- ## Appendix A: Original Requirements Document ``` Interpreter & Translator Service Management Application Requirements We need to build a web application for managing interpreter and translator bookings, document translation workflows, and collaboration between government agencies and service providers. Key Features: 1. User Management - User registration and login using email or SSO - Multiple roles: Admin, Coordinator, Interpreter, Translator, Reviewer, Agency User - User profiles with language pairs, certifications, and availability - Separate workspaces for agencies to manage their own requests 2. Task Management - Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings - Create translation jobs with document uploads - Assign interpreters/translators based on availability and language requirements - Track task progress through defined stages - Support attachments, comments, and activity logs for each task 3. Collaboration - Comment on tasks and mention other users using @mentions - Real-time updates on task changes - Activity feed showing recent team actions 4. File Management - Upload, preview, and download task-related files - Maintain file version history - File access restricted based on user roles 5. Notifications - Email notifications for new assignments and status updates - In-app notifications for mentions and approvals - Optional SMS alerts for urgent bookings - Daily summary email summarizing assigned tasks and activity 6. Reporting - Dashboards showing task statistics and productivity - Export reports as CSV or PDF - Agencies can access spending and performance reports 7. Integration - Integration with Outlook/Teams calendars for booking synchronization - Integration with email services for transactional notifications - Integration with DocuSign for electronic signatures - Optional integration with translation tools (CAT software) 8. System Requirements - Accessible via modern web browsers - Responsive UI for mobile and tablet devices - Follow WCAG accessibility guidelines - Support multiple languages The application will handle sensitive government data, manage interpreter and translator assignments, process translation workflows, and maintain audit logs. It will integrate with third-party services like email, calendar, and video conferencing tools. ``` --- ## Appendix B: Glossary | Term | Definition | |------|------------| | ASVS | Application Security Verification Standard (OWASP) | | STRIDE | Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege | | SAST | Static Application Security Testing | | DAST | Dynamic Application Security Testing | | MFA | Multi-Factor Authentication | | RBAC | Role-Based Access Control | | PII | Personally Identifiable Information | | PHI | Protected Health Information | | GDPR | General Data Protection Regulation | | HIPAA | Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act | | PCI-DSS | Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard | --- ## Appendix C: Complete Threat List This appendix contains the complete list of all identified threats with full descriptions and mitigation strategies. Threats are organized by risk level for easy reference. ### Critical Risk Threats **THR-001** - User Management (Auth service / Identity Service / SSO) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak passwords, or exploiting SSO misconfigurations (SAML/OIDC replay or assertion manipulation) to register/log in as Admin, Coordinator, or Agency User. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce MFA for all administrative and agency accounts; require strong password policies and adaptive/auth risk-based authentication; implement secure SSO configurations with strict audience, issuer, cert validation and short assertion lifetimes; monitor and block credential stuffing; enforce account lockout and anomaly detection; rotate IdP trust keys on schedule. **THR-006** - Application Services (RBAC) - **Category:** Elevation of Privilege - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant boundaries or gain Admin privileges through insecure checks in APIs or direct object reference manipulation. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce server-side RBAC and ABAC checks for every API endpoint; implement per-tenant authorization checks and ownership verification; use centralized authorization service, deny-by-default policies, and regular authorization tests; log privileged operations and alert anomalous privilege changes. **THR-028** - Application Services (Session handling / SPA) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Session cookie theft via XSS or insecure storage leads to account takeover; SPA storing tokens in localStorage increases risk of token theft by malicious scripts. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Avoid storing tokens in localStorage; use secure, HttpOnly cookies with SameSite protections; implement refresh tokens with rotation; set short lifetimes and revoke sessions on suspicious activity; harden against XSS. ### High Risk Threats **THR-002** - Frontend Layer - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Client-side code or assets are tampered (e.g., compromised CDN or supply chain) delivering malicious JS to users leading to credential theft or session hijacking. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use subresource integrity (SRI) where applicable; serve critical JS from trusted origins; enable CSP with strict directives; sign and verify static assets; enforce strong CDN security and origin access; monitor for integrity changes; implement CSP reporting and SCA for dependencies. **THR-003** - Edge & API Gateway - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Large-scale or targeted request floods or slow POST attacks overwhelm gateway or backend services, preventing booking creation or critical operations (availability impact for government workflows). - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement WAF rate limiting, per-tenant quotas, IP reputation blocks, WAF bot mitigation, autoscaling, circuit breakers, backpressure on queues, and use DDoS protection services; implement graceful degradation for non-critical features. **THR-004** - Application Services (APIs) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL injection, NoSQL injection, or other injection attacks to alter booking data or corrupt workflows. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use parameterized queries/ORMs, input validation and allowlists, stored procedures where appropriate; adopt strong ORM/DB access patterns; implement centralized input validation and WAF rules; perform code reviews and automated SAST/DAST; apply least-privilege DB accounts. **THR-005** - Frontend Layer / Application Services - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams allowing escalation to session theft, data exfiltration, or unwanted actions with user context. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Sanitize and encode all user-supplied content server-side; use CSP and httpOnly, Secure cookies; implement Content Security Policy and input/output encoding libraries; validate file previews and remove embedded scripts in previews. **THR-007** - Data Storage (Relational DB / Object Storage) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in object storage or DB due to misconfigured permissions, leaked keys, or lack of encryption at rest. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Encrypt data at rest with customer-managed KMS keys; enforce object storage ACLs with per-tenant prefixes; implement fine-grained IAM roles and rotate credentials; enforce server-side access checks; conduct periodic permission audits and automated scanning for public buckets. **THR-008** - File Management (Uploads & Previews) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Low | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (man-in-the-middle or integrity manipulation), leading to distribution of manipulated legal/government documents. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use TLS for uploads; validate and store file hashes; maintain version history with immutable storage for audit; sign or notarize important documents; implement upload integrity checks and secure temporary storage; restrict file replacement operations and require approvals for edits to final documents. **THR-010** - Integrations & External Services (DocuSign / Calendar / Email) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Compromise of third-party integration tokens or misconfigured OAuth leads to unauthorized calendar/event creation, e-signature forgeries, or sending emails/SMS as the system. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use secure OAuth with short-lived tokens and refresh token rotation; store secrets in vault/KMS and restrict access; implement least privilege scopes; validate third-party callback endpoints; implement out-of-band verification for critical e-signature flows. **THR-012** - Real-time Notifications (WebSockets/Push) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel authorization is flawed or tokens are exposed, e.g., one tenant receives another agency's task updates. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Authenticate and authorize every subscription with short-lived tokens; segregate channels by tenant ID; verify message recipients server-side before dispatch; encrypt payloads if needed; log subscribe/unsubscribe events. **THR-013** - Observability & Audit - **Category:** Repudiation - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alter or delete logs, preventing forensic investigation of who created/approved bookings or changed assignments. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use immutable, append-only log store with WORM retention; replicate logs to a separate secure environment; sign logs; restrict access to log write/delete operations; enable alerts on log volume/retention changes; monitor integrity of audit store. **THR-015** - File Management (Malware scanning integration) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Malicious or weaponized documents bypass malware scanning via zero-day or scanner evasion and are distributed to interpreters/reviewers, resulting in endpoint compromise. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use defense-in-depth: multiple scanning engines, sandbox file execution, strict preview sanitization, block risky file types, isolate downloads to secure viewer, maintain up-to-date scanning signatures and heuristics, and restrict who can download raw files. **THR-016** - Reporting & Exports (CSV/PDF) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Report export functionality exposes aggregated or raw PII if export permissions are weak or exports are cached/stored insecurely, leading to data leaks or bulk extraction via automation. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Restrict export permissions by role and tenancy; watermark/track exports; apply rate limits and require re-authentication for large exports; store exports in secure temporary storage with short TTL; review export content for PII minimization. **THR-018** - Edge & API Gateway - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Session fixation or session token theft via insecure cookies, predictable tokens, or lack of binding to client leads to unauthorized API calls using another user's session. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use secure, HttpOnly, SameSite=strict cookies or token binding; enforce TLS; rotate session tokens on privilege changes; limit session lifetime and implement device session management; bind tokens to IP/device fingerprints for high-risk operations. **THR-020** - Data Storage (KMS / Key Management) - **Category:** Elevation of Privilege - **Likelihood:** Low | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Compromise or misconfiguration of KMS permissions allows attackers to decrypt stored data, re-encrypt to hide activity, or create keys enabling persistent access to tenant data. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce strict IAM for KMS with limited principals; require multi-person approval for key deletion/rotation; audit KMS operations; use separate keys per tenant/classification; enable CMEK and key access logs to immutable store. **THR-021** - Integrations & External Services (CAT Tools / 3rd party translation vendors) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Optional integration with external CAT tools may send source documents or PII to third parties with weaker controls, resulting in data exfiltration or vendor misuse. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Perform vendor security assessments and contractual SLAs; use encryption in transit and at rest; require explicit agency consent per document; provide option to keep data in-house; anonymize or redact PII before sending where possible. **THR-024** - Edge & API Gateway - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Verbose error messages or stack traces returned by API gateway reveal internal architecture, DB queries, or sensitive identifiers aiding attackers in crafting targeted attacks. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Normalize and standardize error messages at edge; log detailed errors internally only; avoid leaking internal IDs or SQL errors to clients; implement structured error codes and document them for integrators. **THR-026** - Data Storage (Immutable Audit Store) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Low | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Insider or privileged account modifies or deletes audit records in mutable stores before they are replicated to the immutable store to cover actions like unauthorized assignments. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Write audit events directly to immutable store or append-only pipeline; segregate duties so no single actor can both perform and erase actions; alert on audit write failures or missing replication; use cryptographic log signing. **THR-030** - Integrations & External Services (Agency IdPs) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Low | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Compromised agency IdP or weak federation mapping allows an attacker from an agency tenant to escalate privileges or impersonate another agency's user due to flawed tenant mapping or federated claims trust. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Validate federated claims and tenant mapping strictly; use audience and org ID checks; implement per-IdP tenant boundaries and allowlist vetted IdPs; require additional attestation for cross-tenant actions; implement SCIM and periodic identity reconciliation. ### Medium Risk Threats **THR-009** - Background & Queue Services - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversions or fake jobs) causing queue starvation, high costs, delayed notifications and assignment failures. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce job rate limits and per-tenant quotas; validate job origins and authenticate enqueuers; require signed job payloads; apply resource limits and cost controls; monitor queue depth and anomalous job patterns. **THR-011** - Application Services (Assignment Engine) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Manipulating assignment logic or job payloads (e.g., by submitting crafted requests) to favor certain interpreters/translators or to bypass availability checks. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Validate assignment decisions server-side; sign/verify messages between microservices; create immutable assignment audit trail; implement input allowlists; rate-limit assignment-related endpoints; monitor for anomalies in assignment patterns. **THR-014** - Notifications (Email/SMS) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Sensitive booking or PII included in email/SMS notifications could be intercepted or sent to wrong recipient due to template injection or address manipulation. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Avoid including PII in notifications; use templating with strict parameterization; validate recipient addresses; support secure links requiring authentication for details; log notification deliveries and failures; apply TLS for email delivery (MTA-STS, DANE where possible). **THR-017** - Integrations & External Services (Calendar APIs) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Calendar synchronization leaks sensitive booking details into external calendars if scope over-provisioning occurs or if tokens are stolen, exposing schedule and possibly PII externally. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use minimal OAuth scopes, display clear consent to agency; allow optional redaction of event details; rotate tokens; restrict calendar sync to approved domains; log calendar API calls and detect abnormal sync volumes. **THR-019** - Application Services (API endpoints) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) on state-changing endpoints (e.g., create/edit bookings) allows attackers to trigger actions in an authenticated user's context. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Require anti-CSRF tokens for state-changing operations or use same-site cookies and validate Origin/Referer headers; require reauthentication for sensitive operations. **THR-022** - Background & Queue Services (File processing) - **Category:** Repudiation - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Background job failures or retries alter timestamps or state transitions without clear audit, allowing actors to deny actions (e.g., who approved a version) or hide malicious changes. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Create immutable event logs for job lifecycle; include job IDs and correlation IDs; idempotent processing and versioned state transitions; notify on unexpected job failures; preserve original timestamps where required. **THR-023** - Frontend Layer (Accessibility / Multi-language) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Low | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Localization/i18n resource injection or misuse causes disclosure of environment data or secrets if translation strings are loaded from untrusted sources or include interpolated sensitive values. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Ship localization resources as part of built artifacts; sanitize and review translation strings; avoid runtime interpolation of secrets; restrict language packs from third-party sources; test localized UI for security-sensitive content leakage. **THR-025** - Application Services (Activity feed / Comments) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Comment @mentions or activity feed allow injection of links to malicious sites or SSRF payloads in user-supplied content, enabling server-side or client-side exploitation. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Sanitize and canonicalize links; restrict allowed URL schemes; render external links with rel="noopener noreferrer" and warning UI; block internal IP ranges from being referenced; scan comments for malicious patterns. **THR-027** - Integrations & External Services (Email/SMS Providers) - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Third-party email or SMS provider outage causes missed urgent booking alerts and SMS alerts, impacting mission-critical scheduling and response. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement multi-provider fallback for SMS/email; queue outgoing notifications and retry with backoff; provide alternative in-app critical alerts; monitor provider SLAs and implement heartbeat checks. **THR-029** - Data Storage (Analytics Store / Reporting) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Improper anonymization in analytics/reporting store exposes sensitive aggregates or individual PII through re-identification or by querying granular exports. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Apply differential privacy or strong anonymization; limit granularity for exported data; apply role-based access to analytics; monitor and limit ad-hoc query capabilities; sanitize report datasets. **Total Threats:** 30 --- ## Appendix D: Complete Requirements Traceability Matrix This appendix provides complete end-to-end traceability from requirements through threats to controls and verification. ### Full Traceability Table | Req ID | Requirement | Category | Sensitivity | Threat IDs | Security Controls | Priority | Verification | Status | |--------|-------------|----------|-------------|------------|----------------|----------|--------------|--------| | REQ-001 | User registration and login with email, SSO, and m... | Authentication & Identity | High | THR-001, THR-002, THR-005 +7 | [OWASP] V2.1, [NIST] IA-2, [ISO27001] A.9.4.2 | Critical | Review provisioning procedures, sampling of privileged accounts, and evidence of MFA enforcement and periodic access reviews., Inspect user account lifecycle, sample accounts for ANA/MFA enforcement, and verify logs show MFA usage for privileged accesses. | Pending | | REQ-002 | Role-based access control (Admin, Coordinator, Int... | Authorization & Access Control | High | THR-001, THR-006, THR-007 +5 | [OWASP] V4.1, [NIST] AC-2, [NIST] AC-6 | Critical | Permission audits, automated checks for unused privileges, and penetration testing for privilege escalation., Review account provisioning workflows, audit records for role changes, and test role deactivation scenarios. | Pending | | REQ-003 | User profiles capturing language pairs, certificat... | User Management / HR Data | Medium | THR-001, THR-002, THR-005 +7 | [OWASP] V5.8, [NIST] PL-2, [ISO27001] A.8.2.3 | Critical | Check system security requirements documentation and traceability to implemented controls protecting profile data., Data classification review, check encryption of sensitive fields, and access log sampling for profile attribute reads. | Pending | | REQ-004 | Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/authorizatio... | Multi-Tenancy / Data Segregation | High | None | [OWASP] V4.6, [NIST] SC-7, [NIST] AC-4 | Critical | Review information flow policies, test attempts to access other tenants' data, and examine enforcement logs., Network segmentation review, monitoring of inter-tenant communications, and boundary enforcement tests. | Pending | | REQ-005 | Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings wit... | Task & Scheduling Management | Medium | THR-013, THR-017, THR-019 +2 | [OWASP] V4.3, [NIST] AU-2, [NIST] SI-10 | Critical | Functional tests for authorization enforcement, IDOR tests, and business logic fuzzing., Input validation tests, fuzzing location/scheduling fields, and review of validation code. | Pending | | REQ-006 | Create translation jobs with document upload, assi... | Document & Workflow Management | High | THR-007, THR-008, THR-009 +6 | [OWASP] V5.5, [NIST] MP-4, [NIST] SI-3 | Critical | Review scanning integration logs, test with benign test files, and check quarantine policies., Review file upload pipeline, malware scan logs, access control configuration, and version history integrity. | Pending | | REQ-007 | Automated assignment engine to match interpreters/... | Matching & Scheduling Automation | Medium | THR-004, THR-009, THR-011 +2 | [OWASP] V2.6, [NIST] PL-8, [NIST] SA-5 | High | Architecture review, data flow analysis, and privacy impact assessment for the matching engine., Review algorithm logic, perform tests for edge cases, and audit decision logs for correctness and bias. | Pending | | REQ-008 | Task lifecycle management with configurable stages... | Workflow Management | Medium | THR-001, THR-004, THR-006 +5 | [OWASP] V4.4, [NIST] AU-6, [NIST] CM-3 | High | Review audit reports for lifecycle events and sample logs for anomaly detection., Inspect configuration change logs, code repository history, and approval records. | Pending | | REQ-009 | Attachments, comments, mentions (@mentions), and p... | Collaboration & Audit | High | THR-005, THR-013, THR-020 +1 | [OWASP] V5.6, [NIST] AU-8, [ISO27001] A.12.4.3 | High | Check log timestamps for consistency and NTP configuration; validate event sequencing in samples., Content injection tests, file upload security tests, and auditing of comment and activity logs. | Pending | | REQ-010 | Real-time updates (notifications/WS) and an activi... | Collaboration / Real-time Communication | Medium | THR-005, THR-012, THR-014 +5 | [OWASP] V3.7, [NIST] SC-8, [NIST] SC-5 | High | Review WebSocket/TLS configs, test message tampering/replay scenarios, and verify authentication enforcement on connections., Load and DDoS simulation tests and monitoring of real-time channel availability. | Pending | | REQ-011 | File management: upload, preview, download, scanni... | File & Content Management | High | THR-001, THR-004, THR-005 +4 | [OWASP] V5.5, [NIST] SI-3, [ISO27001] A.12.2.1 | Critical | Check malware scanning logs and sandboxing outcomes; periodic testing with EICAR/test samples., Review file handling pipeline, test upload of known-malicious test files, and verify version history integrity. | Pending | | REQ-012 | Role- and workspace-based file and task access con... | Access Control & Data Governance | High | THR-004, THR-005, THR-006 +7 | [OWASP] V4.1, [NIST] AC-3, [ISO27001] A.9.1.1 | Critical | Access control testing across roles, attempt unauthorized file access across workspaces, and code review., Inspect authorization service logs, policy definitions, and run access matrix tests. | Pending | | REQ-013 | Email, in-app, and optional SMS notifications (ass... | Notifications & Communications | Medium | THR-009, THR-011, THR-012 +2 | [OWASP] V3.8, [NIST] SC-13, [ISO27001] A.13.2.3 | High | Network capture review to confirm TLS usage and inspection of outbound message payloads., Inspect mail system configs, test header authentication, and review notification content for data leakage. | Pending | | REQ-014 | Dashboards and reporting: task statistics, product... | Reporting & Analytics | Medium | THR-004, THR-006, THR-009 +3 | [OWASP] V5.8, [NIST] PL-2, [ISO27001] A.8.2.1 | High | Review report generation code, test exports under different roles, and verify redaction/aggregation., Check classification labels on report datasets and verify enforcement of handling rules on exports. | Pending | | REQ-015 | Agency financial and performance reporting (spend,... | Finance & Performance Management | High | THR-001, THR-006, THR-012 +3 | [OWASP] V5.8, [NIST] PL-2, [ISO27001] A.18.1.4 | Critical | Legal/compliance review and evidence of controls meeting contractual requirements., Review requirements documentation and test financial reporting modules for access and integrity. | Pending | | REQ-016 | Integrations: Outlook/Teams calendar synchronizati... | Integration & Scheduling | Medium | THR-010, THR-013, THR-017 +4 | [OWASP] V3.9, [NIST] SA-9, [ISO27001] A.13.2.3 | High | Inspect OAuth flows, token storage, and scope usage; test token revocation and refresh., Review contracts and API usage logs; confirm monitoring and alerting for integration anomalies. | Pending | | REQ-017 | Integrations: transactional email service, DocuSig... | Integration & Third-Party Services | Medium | THR-001, THR-010, THR-014 +4 | [OWASP] V3.9, [ISO27001] A.15.1.1, [NIST] SA-9 | High | Review integration auth methods, secrets management, and test revocation scenarios., API gateway logs, monitoring dashboards, and incident records involving integrations. | Pending | | REQ-018 | Accessibility, responsive UI, and multi-language u... | Usability & Accessibility | Low | THR-001, THR-002, THR-005 +7 | [OWASP] V1.3, [NIST] SA-11, [ISO27001] A.18.1.1 | Medium | Secure SDLC artifacts showing localization/security tests and results., Compliance checklist and evidence of adherence to accessibility standards. | Pending | | REQ-019 | Audit logging, immutable activity records, and con... | Logging & Compliance | High | THR-004, THR-005, THR-006 +7 | [OWASP] V10.1, [NIST] AU-2, [NIST] AU-9 | Critical | Inspect log storage settings, retention configurations, and tamper-evidence mechanisms., Event catalog review and spot-checks of generated audit records. | Pending | | REQ-020 | Security controls including encryption in transit ... | Security & Risk Management | High | THR-001, THR-004, THR-005 +7 | [OWASP] V5.1, [NIST] SI-3, [NIST] IR-4 +1 | Critical | Vulnerability scan reports, patch records, and incident management metrics., IR plan documentation, tabletop exercise evidence, and post-incident reviews. | Pending | **Total Requirements Tracked:** 20 ### Detailed Requirement Mappings The following section provides detailed traceability for each requirement: #### REQ-001: User registration and login with email, SSO, and multi-factor authentication **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas... - **THR-002**: Client-side code or assets are tampered (e.g., compromised CDN or supply chain) ... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a... - **THR-006**: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo... - **THR-012**: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V2.1**: [OWASP] Verify that authentication requirements for account creation and login use secur... - **[NIST] IA-2**: [NIST] Organizational users shall be uniquely identified and authenticated. Supports mu... - **[ISO27001] A.9.4.2**: [ISO27001] The allocation and use of privileged access rights shall be restricted and contr... **Verification:** Review provisioning procedures, sampling of privileged accounts, and evidence of MFA enforcement and periodic access reviews., Inspect user account lifecycle, sample accounts for ANA/MFA enforcement, and verify logs show MFA usage for privileged accesses., Review authentication design, inspect MFA and SSO configuration, and perform authentication flow tests including replay/resilience tests. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-002: Role-based access control (Admin, Coordinator, Interpreter, Translator, Reviewer, Agency User) **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas... - **THR-006**: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo... - **THR-007**: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in ... - **THR-012**: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut... - **THR-020**: Compromise or misconfiguration of KMS permissions allows attackers to decrypt st... - *...and 3 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V4.1**: [OWASP] Verify role-based access control is enforced server-side and follows the princip... - **[NIST] AC-2**: [NIST] The organization manages information system accounts, establishing, activating, ... - **[NIST] AC-6**: [NIST] The organization employs the principle of least privilege, ensuring users have t... **Verification:** Permission audits, automated checks for unused privileges, and penetration testing for privilege escalation., Review account provisioning workflows, audit records for role changes, and test role deactivation scenarios., Code and configuration review of authorization checks, role-permission matrix review, and tests attempting privilege escalation. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-003: User profiles capturing language pairs, certifications, availability, and vetting status **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas... - **THR-002**: Client-side code or assets are tampered (e.g., compromised CDN or supply chain) ... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a... - **THR-006**: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo... - **THR-007**: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in ... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V5.8**: [OWASP] Verify that personal data stored in user profiles is minimized, protected at res... - **[NIST] PL-2**: [NIST] The organization determines and documents the security and privacy requirements ... - **[ISO27001] A.8.2.3**: [ISO27001] Information should be classified according to its value, sensitivity, and critic... **Verification:** Check system security requirements documentation and traceability to implemented controls protecting profile data., Data classification review, check encryption of sensitive fields, and access log sampling for profile attribute reads., Review classification policy and evidence that profile fields are handled per classification (encryption, access controls). **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-004: Agency-specific workspaces and tenant/authorization separation **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V4.6**: [OWASP] Verify tenant isolation and authorization boundaries in multi-tenant application... - **[NIST] SC-7**: [NIST] The information system monitors and controls communications at external and inte... - **[NIST] AC-4**: [NIST] The information system enforces approved authorizations for controlling the flow... **Verification:** Review information flow policies, test attempts to access other tenants' data, and examine enforcement logs., Network segmentation review, monitoring of inter-tenant communications, and boundary enforcement tests., Multi-tenant penetration tests, data access reviews ensuring tenant ID enforcement, and code review of authorization logic. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-005: Create, edit, and delete interpreting bookings with scheduling and location details **Related Threats:** - **THR-013**: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alt... - **THR-017**: Calendar synchronization leaks sensitive booking details into external calendars... - **THR-019**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) on state-changing endpoints (e.g., create/edit... - **THR-026**: Insider or privileged account modifies or deletes audit records in mutable store... - **THR-027**: Third-party email or SMS provider outage causes missed urgent booking alerts and... **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V4.3**: [OWASP] Verify that business functions like creating, editing, and deleting resources en... - **[NIST] AU-2**: [NIST] The organization defines auditable events for the information system, including ... - **[NIST] SI-10**: [NIST] The information system validates inputs to prevent malicious data that could aff... **Verification:** Functional tests for authorization enforcement, IDOR tests, and business logic fuzzing., Input validation tests, fuzzing location/scheduling fields, and review of validation code., Review audit log configuration and sample booking event logs for completeness and integrity. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-006: Create translation jobs with document upload, assignment, review, and versioned deliverables **Related Threats:** - **THR-007**: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in ... - **THR-008**: Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (ma... - **THR-009**: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio... - **THR-013**: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alt... - **THR-015**: Malicious or weaponized documents bypass malware scanning via zero-day or scanne... - *...and 4 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V5.5**: [OWASP] Verify secure handling of file uploads, including virus scanning, storage with a... - **[NIST] MP-4**: [NIST] Protection of digital and non-digital media containing sensitive information, in... - **[NIST] SI-3**: [NIST] The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, whi... **Verification:** Review scanning integration logs, test with benign test files, and check quarantine policies., Review file upload pipeline, malware scan logs, access control configuration, and version history integrity., Inspect storage encryption settings, access policies, and sample access records for document retrieval. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-007: Automated assignment engine to match interpreters/translators by language, availability, certificati... **Related Threats:** - **THR-004**: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i... - **THR-009**: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio... - **THR-011**: Manipulating assignment logic or job payloads (e.g., by submitting crafted reque... - **THR-013**: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alt... - **THR-026**: Insider or privileged account modifies or deletes audit records in mutable store... **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V2.6**: [OWASP] Verify business logic and automated decision-making enforce authorization, preve... - **[NIST] PL-8**: [NIST] The organization incorporates privacy and security requirements into the system ... - **[NIST] SA-5**: [NIST] Security requirements for system components including custom algorithms should b... **Verification:** Architecture review, data flow analysis, and privacy impact assessment for the matching engine., Review algorithm logic, perform tests for edge cases, and audit decision logs for correctness and bias., Requirement traceability review, code audits, and component security assessments. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-008: Task lifecycle management with configurable stages and progress tracking **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas... - **THR-004**: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i... - **THR-006**: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo... - **THR-008**: Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (ma... - **THR-009**: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio... - *...and 3 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V4.4**: [OWASP] Verify workflows enforce authorization at each stage, maintain integrity of stat... - **[NIST] AU-6**: [NIST] The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records for indic... - **[NIST] CM-3**: [NIST] The organization develops, documents, and maintains baseline configurations and ... **Verification:** Review audit reports for lifecycle events and sample logs for anomaly detection., Inspect configuration change logs, code repository history, and approval records., Workflow testing (attempting unauthorized transitions), code review of state machine, and log inspection. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-009: Attachments, comments, mentions (@mentions), and per-task activity logs **Related Threats:** - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a... - **THR-013**: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alt... - **THR-020**: Compromise or misconfiguration of KMS permissions allows attackers to decrypt st... - **THR-025**: Comment @mentions or activity feed allow injection of links to malicious sites o... **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V5.6**: [OWASP] Verify handling of user-provided content including attachments and comments, ens... - **[NIST] AU-8**: [NIST] The information system time-stamps audit records to provide accurate sequencing ... - **[ISO27001] A.12.4.3**: [ISO27001] Administrator and operator activities shall be logged and the logs protected to ... **Verification:** Check log timestamps for consistency and NTP configuration; validate event sequencing in samples., Content injection tests, file upload security tests, and auditing of comment and activity logs., Review logging policy, access controls on logs, and sample logs for completeness. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-010: Real-time updates (notifications/WS) and an activity feed showing recent team actions **Related Threats:** - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a... - **THR-012**: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut... - **THR-014**: Sensitive booking or PII included in email/SMS notifications could be intercepte... - **THR-019**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) on state-changing endpoints (e.g., create/edit... - **THR-020**: Compromise or misconfiguration of KMS permissions allows attackers to decrypt st... - *...and 3 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V3.7**: [OWASP] Verify secure use of real-time communication channels (WebSockets, SSE) includin... - **[NIST] SC-8**: [NIST] The information system protects the confidentiality and integrity of transmitted... - **[NIST] SC-5**: [NIST] The information system protects against or limits the effects of denial-of-servi... **Verification:** Review WebSocket/TLS configs, test message tampering/replay scenarios, and verify authentication enforcement on connections., Load and DDoS simulation tests and monitoring of real-time channel availability., Network captures to verify TLS usage and payload encryption; review transport-level configs. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-011: File management: upload, preview, download, scanning, and file version history **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas... - **THR-004**: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a... - **THR-008**: Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (ma... - **THR-009**: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio... - *...and 2 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V5.5**: [OWASP] Verify secure handling of file uploads, including virus scanning, storage with a... - **[NIST] SI-3**: [NIST] The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, whi... - **[ISO27001] A.12.2.1**: [ISO27001] Controls shall be implemented to detect and protect against malware, including s... **Verification:** Check malware scanning logs and sandboxing outcomes; periodic testing with EICAR/test samples., Review file handling pipeline, test upload of known-malicious test files, and verify version history integrity., Operational policy review, scanning tool configuration inspection, and test evidence. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-012: Role- and workspace-based file and task access controls **Related Threats:** - **THR-004**: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a... - **THR-006**: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo... - **THR-007**: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in ... - **THR-008**: Uploaded documents are replaced or maliciously altered in transit or at rest (ma... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V4.1**: [OWASP] Verify role-based access control is enforced server-side and follows the princip... - **[NIST] AC-3**: [NIST] The information system enforces approved authorizations for logical access to in... - **[ISO27001] A.9.1.1**: [ISO27001] Access control policy shall be established based on business and information sec... **Verification:** Access control testing across roles, attempt unauthorized file access across workspaces, and code review., Inspect authorization service logs, policy definitions, and run access matrix tests., Policy review and evidence of policy enforcement through access logs and audits. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-013: Email, in-app, and optional SMS notifications (assignments, status updates, mentions, approvals, dai... **Related Threats:** - **THR-009**: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio... - **THR-011**: Manipulating assignment logic or job payloads (e.g., by submitting crafted reque... - **THR-012**: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut... - **THR-014**: Sensitive booking or PII included in email/SMS notifications could be intercepte... - **THR-021**: Optional integration with external CAT tools may send source documents or PII to... **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V3.8**: [OWASP] Verify that outbound email/SMS notifications use secure channels, proper authent... - **[NIST] SC-13**: [NIST] The information system implements cryptographic mechanisms to protect the confid... - **[ISO27001] A.13.2.3**: [ISO27001] Information involved in electronic messaging shall be protected in accordance wi... **Verification:** Network capture review to confirm TLS usage and inspection of outbound message payloads., Inspect mail system configs, test header authentication, and review notification content for data leakage., Policy and contract review, plus sampling message handling procedures. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-014: Dashboards and reporting: task statistics, productivity, exports (CSV/PDF) **Related Threats:** - **THR-004**: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i... - **THR-006**: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo... - **THR-009**: Attackers flood background job system with expensive tasks (large file conversio... - **THR-012**: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut... - **THR-016**: Report export functionality exposes aggregated or raw PII if export permissions ... - *...and 1 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V5.8**: [OWASP] Verify that reporting and export functionality enforces access control, minimize... - **[NIST] PL-2**: [NIST] The organization determines and documents security and privacy requirements for ... - **[ISO27001] A.8.2.1**: [ISO27001] Information shall be classified and handling procedures established; reports and... **Verification:** Review report generation code, test exports under different roles, and verify redaction/aggregation., Check classification labels on report datasets and verify enforcement of handling rules on exports., Traceability review from requirements to implementation and testing of export controls. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-015: Agency financial and performance reporting (spend, SLA metrics) **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas... - **THR-006**: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo... - **THR-012**: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut... - **THR-016**: Report export functionality exposes aggregated or raw PII if export permissions ... - **THR-029**: Improper anonymization in analytics/reporting store exposes sensitive aggregates... - *...and 1 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V5.8**: [OWASP] Verify that sensitive financial and performance data is protected, access is res... - **[NIST] PL-2**: [NIST] The organization determines and documents security and privacy requirements for ... - **[ISO27001] A.18.1.4**: [ISO27001] Ensure compliance with legal and contractual requirements related to processing ... **Verification:** Legal/compliance review and evidence of controls meeting contractual requirements., Review requirements documentation and test financial reporting modules for access and integrity., Access policy review for financial reports and verification of integrity controls on exported data. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-016: Integrations: Outlook/Teams calendar synchronization for bookings **Related Threats:** - **THR-010**: Compromise of third-party integration tokens or misconfigured OAuth leads to una... - **THR-013**: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow privileged users or attackers to alt... - **THR-017**: Calendar synchronization leaks sensitive booking details into external calendars... - **THR-019**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) on state-changing endpoints (e.g., create/edit... - **THR-021**: Optional integration with external CAT tools may send source documents or PII to... - *...and 2 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V3.9**: [OWASP] Verify integration with third-party APIs uses secure OAuth flows, least privileg... - **[NIST] SA-9**: [NIST] The organization monitors and controls external system connections and uses cont... - **[ISO27001] A.13.2.3**: [ISO27001] Formal transfer policies, procedures and controls shall be in place to protect t... **Verification:** Inspect OAuth flows, token storage, and scope usage; test token revocation and refresh., Review contracts and API usage logs; confirm monitoring and alerting for integration anomalies., Data flow diagrams and checks that transfers use TLS and minimal data exchange. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-017: Integrations: transactional email service, DocuSign (e-signatures), optional CAT tool integrations **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas... - **THR-010**: Compromise of third-party integration tokens or misconfigured OAuth leads to una... - **THR-014**: Sensitive booking or PII included in email/SMS notifications could be intercepte... - **THR-017**: Calendar synchronization leaks sensitive booking details into external calendars... - **THR-021**: Optional integration with external CAT tools may send source documents or PII to... - *...and 2 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V3.9**: [OWASP] Verify integration with third-party APIs uses secure OAuth flows, least privileg... - **[ISO27001] A.15.1.1**: [ISO27001] Information security requirements for mitigating risks associated with supplier ... - **[NIST] SA-9**: [NIST] The organization monitors and controls external system connections and uses cont... **Verification:** Review integration auth methods, secrets management, and test revocation scenarios., API gateway logs, monitoring dashboards, and incident records involving integrations., Contract review for security clauses and evidence of supplier assessments. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-018: Accessibility, responsive UI, and multi-language user interface **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas... - **THR-002**: Client-side code or assets are tampered (e.g., compromised CDN or supply chain) ... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a... - **THR-006**: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo... - **THR-012**: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V1.3**: [OWASP] Verify secure design includes accessibility and localization considerations; ens... - **[NIST] SA-11**: [NIST] Developers should adhere to secure development practices that include validating... - **[ISO27001] A.18.1.1**: [ISO27001] Consider legal and regulatory requirements for accessibility and language suppor... **Verification:** Secure SDLC artifacts showing localization/security tests and results., Compliance checklist and evidence of adherence to accessibility standards., Localization input tests, accessibility compliance testing, and review of localized encoding handling. **Priority:** Medium | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-019: Audit logging, immutable activity records, and configurable data retention **Related Threats:** - **THR-004**: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a... - **THR-006**: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo... - **THR-007**: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in ... - **THR-012**: Real-time channels leak sensitive task data to unauthorized users if channel aut... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V10.1**: [OWASP] Verify that applications produce sufficient, tamper-evident audit logs for secur... - **[NIST] AU-2**: [NIST] The organization defines auditable events and the information system generates a... - **[NIST] AU-9**: [NIST] Audit records shall be protected against unauthorized access, modification, and ... **Verification:** Inspect log storage settings, retention configurations, and tamper-evidence mechanisms., Event catalog review and spot-checks of generated audit records., Access control review for logs, checksum verification, and comparison across replicas. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-020: Security controls including encryption in transit and at rest, malware scanning, data loss preventio... **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attackers impersonate legitimate users by stealing credentials, abusing weak pas... - **THR-004**: API inputs (task creation, assignments, file metadata) are manipulated via SQL i... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) through comments, file metadata, or preview streams a... - **THR-006**: Broken access control: users access or modify tasks/agency data across tenant bo... - **THR-007**: Unauthorized access to PII, vetting/certification documents, or translations in ... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V5.1**: [OWASP] Verify sensitive data is protected using strong cryptography in transit and at r... - **[NIST] SI-3**: [NIST] The organization provides protection to detect and eradicate malicious code, whi... - **[NIST] IR-4**: [NIST] The organization tests incident response capabilities and maintains incident res... - **[ISO27001] A.12.6.1**: [ISO27001] Require a process to identify, assess and remedy technical vulnerabilities and t... **Verification:** Vulnerability scan reports, patch records, and incident management metrics., IR plan documentation, tabletop exercise evidence, and post-incident reviews., Cryptography configuration reviews, key management audits, and DLP rule testing., Malware scan logs, update records, and sandbox analysis evidence. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- --- ## Appendix E: References - [OWASP ASVS 5.0](https://owasp.org/www-project-application-security-verification-standard/) - [NIST Cybersecurity Framework](https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework) - [ISO/IEC 27001:2022](https://www.iso.org/standard/27001) - [OWASP Top 10](https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/) - [MITRE ATT&CK Framework](https://attack.mitre.org/) --- *End of Report - Generated by Security Requirements Analysis System v2.0* *Generated: 2025-11-20 10:16:02*